Department of Planning Evaluation of Smiler’s Wharf

Master Plan / Zone Change Application

PZ1908ZC Zone Change Map Amendment Master Plan for rezoning a portion of the Seaport Marine site from a Marine
Commercial District (MC-80) to a Neighborhood Development District (NDD) for a mixed-use waterfront development.
Properties located at 2, 4, 10, & 18 Washington St., & Willow St., Mystic. Assessors Map 182 Block 1 Lots 16, 12, 8, 7 & 6.
Zones MC-80 & RC-120.

Prepared by the Town of Stonington Department of Planning

for the Stonington Planning and Zoning Commission

May 23, 2019

Introduction
Purpose
This report has been prepared by the Stonington Department of Planning as a “Conceptual Evaluation” of basic project feasibility as
per Section 6.3 of the Zoning Regulations.

Note: Section 6.3 of the Zoning Regulations applies to Special Use Permit applications and not Master Plans and/or Zone Changes
(which typically include less detailed information). However, this report has been prepared as guidance for the Commission as they
consider this application.

While the report summarizes and frames various issues, its purpose is not to provide a recommendation on the Zone Change request
to the Commission. Unlike typical land use applications, this application involves many subjective issues and trade-offs that are
intended to be made by the appointed representatives of the community.

Current Property Information

General
The property is located at 2, 4, 10 & 18 Washington St. & Willow St., Mystic. Assessors Map 182, Block 1, Lots 16, 12, 8, 7 & 6. The
applicant/owner is Noank Shipyard. The property includes a marina including boat slips, boat storage and repair, warehouse, office,
a vacant single family home, ancillary buildings as well as Red 36 restaurant. The site totals 11 acres, including RC-120 portions not
slated for development. Approximately 7.5 acres are developable in the MC-80 Zone. The site is currently accessed through
Washington and Willow Streets. Noank Shipyard’s property does not include the Allen Spool Mill at 60 Willow St. or medical office
building at 55 Willow St., both of which are separately owned.

Zoning Information
This site is currently zoned MC-80 (Marine Commercial). The stated purpose of this zone is “a zone where commercial water-
dependent uses are permitted.” The zone also non-water dependent uses such as restaurants, single family homes. Bulk
requirements include a maximum height of 20’ in order to preserve coastal views. Undeveloped / wetland portions of the site are
zoned RC-120 (Residential Coastal); these areas are not proposed to be rezoned or developed.

Page 1 of 35
Characteristics
The site is generally flat, and surrounded by the Mystic River and tidal wetlands. Per the applicant’s Natural Resource Inventory, tidal
wetlands are of varying degrees of quality. With the exception of surrounding tidal wetlands, the site is comprised of previously
developed areas (filled or disturbed soils). There are no inland wetlands in or adjacent to the development per the applicant’s soil
scientist report.

Public Utilities
Public utilities are available in this area through Aquarion Water Co. and municipal sewer. Natural gas is not available in Mystic.

Historical Use
This site has historically been utilized for various manufacturing uses including ship building. A large 3 story mill existed on the site in
the 19th Century. The site is just outside of the adjacent Mystic Bridge National Register Historic District.

Surrounding Land Uses

North: Zoned RH-10 & MC-80; residential, recreation and commercial uses
East: Zoned RC-120 & RH-10; residential uses
South: Mystic Harbor
West: Mystic River / Town of Groton

Page 2 of 35
Proposed Plans
The applicants are seeking a Zone Change / Master Plan approval from MC-80 to NDD (Neighborhood Development District).

Neighborhood Development District

The Neighborhood Development District (NDD) is one of the Town’s “Floating Zones.” The NDD was established by the Town in 2005
with the stated purpose as a tool to encourage redevelopment of underutilized commercial properties (see full statement of purpose).
The district is governed by a Master Plan developed by the property owner that governs the uses and layout of the property. The
Master Plan process involves significantly more flexibility on behalf of both the applicant and the Commission.
Approvals under the NDD include two steps before the Commission:

Step 1 is a Master Plan approval which sets out the basic uses and parameters of a site or development. The Master Plan approval is
treated as a Zone Change – its approval actually changes the zone of the property to NDD.

Step 2 in the process is the Site Plan approval which includes fully engineered plans and specific details not included in the Master
Plan. A public hearing is also required for this review. Since the applicants plan on phasing their development into multiple stages,
there will be multiple Site Plan reviews with multiple public hearings.

Page 3 of 35
 Floating Zone
“A special detailed use district of
undetermined location in which a
proposed type, size and form of
structures must be pre-approved,
and it is legislatively deemed
compatible with the areas in which
it eventually locates if specified
standards are met and a particular
application is filed which is not
unreasonable.”
Source: Land Use Law and Practice,
Second Edition, by Robert A. Fuller
SUMMARY OF NDD PERMITTING PROCESS NDD Statement of
Purpose (Section 7.21.2):
Step 1. NDD Zoning Map “The NDD is intended to:
Amendment through Master Plan encourage the reclamation of
underutilized commercial
parcels and permit new
construction, renovation
Step 2. NDD Site Plan
and/or adaptive re-use at
Application
these sites; promote
diversified housing
opportunities, including, but
Step 3. Zoning Permit not limited to, mixed-use
(Staff level) development uses; and
preserve and enhance the
Town’s historic character,
sensitive environmental
Step 4. Building Permit
(Staff level)
resources and these
neighborhoods in the village
cores. This zone is intended
to allow for the
establishment, continuation
and expansion of such uses
and activities in ways that will
maintain and enhance
compatibility with
surrounding neighborhoods…
Page 4 of 35
Proposal Summary
As shown on the applicant’s submitted Master Plan, the redevelopment of Seaport Marine will include the following features:
• Demolition of all current buildings with the exception of Red 36
• Elimination of certain marina activities such as upland boat storage and boat repair
• 45 unit hotel – 44,230SF, 5 stories with ground floor parking.
• Marine services building / community event space – 16,590SF, 3 stories with ground floor parking.
• Restaurant building – 11,791SF, 3 stories, 200 seats.
• Apartment building – 25 units, 63,742SF, 6 stories with ground floor parking.
• Townhouses – 16 units, 27,840SF. 3 ½ stories with ground floor parking.
• Multi-family residential – 6 units, 11,135SF, 3 ½ stories with ground floor parking.
• Kayak rental structure – 1,000’ open air structure for kayak rentals at Washington and Cottrell Streets.
• Open air plaza between hotel and marine services building to serve as a public gathering space with parking below.
• Crescent Park – Landscaped area featuring low sitting walls.
• 120 boat slips
• Extension of existing public boardwalk by over 200’ in addition to approximately 130’ of coastal access south of the apartment
building and public access to the plaza and crescent park.
• New boat basin - removal of approximately 13,000SF of current land with basin to be dredged.
• New bulkhead on the eastern shore of the site and north of boat basin to guard against erosion and storm surges.
• Surface parking areas and parking under many buildings

As shown in the map below, the proposal will rezone all commercially zoned areas of the site from MC-80 to NDD. The areas of the
site zoned RC-120 (mostly tidal wetlands) will not be rezoned to NDD. Separately owned parcels, the Allen Spool Mill at 60 Willow St.
and the medical office at 55 Willow St. will not be rezoned and will maintain their zoning designations of IHRD and MC-80, respectively.

Page 5 of 35
PROPOSED MASTER PLAN

Page 6 of 35
PROPOSED REZONING

Medical office
to remain MC-80

Rezone from
MC-80 to NDD
RC-120
areas
remain
unchanged

Allen Spool Mill

to remain IHRD

Page 7 of 35
SUMMARY OF RESIDENTIAL DENSITY
Total Acreage (not including RC-120 areas) 7.5
# Dwelling Units 47

Units per Acre 6.3

Maximum Units per Acre per NDD Regulations 8*

*NDD allows up to 12 units per acre possible if certain mixed use goals are met.

Project Feasibility
This section is intended as a guide to the project’s basic feasibility per Section 6.3.2 of the regulations. The opinions and/or summaries
of the Department of Planning are not intended to be a substitute for more detailed analysis that may be provided by others during
formal application review. Please note that “feasibility” as called for in the regulations is also not a substitute for the value judgements
that need to be made by the Commission.

PUBLIC WATER SYSTEM CAPACITY

Public water is available at this location through the Aquarion Water Company. According to the applicant’s impact statement water
pressure is adequate is this area. Comments have not been received from Aquarion but there are not known constraints to the
provision of water for this development.

Department of Planning recommendation regarding project feasibility:

FEASIBLE

PUBLIC SANITARY SEWER SYSTEM CAPACITY

The subject property is served by public sewer. The Mystic treatment plant is approaching capacity and funding has been sought to
upgrade the connection to the Borough plant to improve this situation. According to their 4/9/19 comments, WPCA cannot accept
any additional flows until they receive approvals for such flows from DEEP and funding is approved for use of the transmission line
from the Mystic plant to the Borough plant. Since that time the approved municipal Capital Improvement budget has included funding
over the next 2 years to address capacity issues.

Page 8 of 35
 MASTER PLAN VS. SEWER CAPACITY

The scale of the Master Plan is at odds with the current capacity of the Mystic plant. There are 2 ways the Commission
can approach this issue, both of which seem to be supported by the NDD regulations:

1. Approval of the Master Plan in order to change the zone with the understanding that Site Plans for construction
cannot be approved until capacity is addressed. This could be a stipulation of approval.

2. Denial of the Master Plan on the grounds that the redevelopment is not supported by adequate infrastructure
and does not support protection of sensitive environmental resources.

Department of Planning recommendation regarding project feasibility: FEASIBLE WITH POTENTIAL FOR CAPACITY INCREASE.

SURFACE DRAINAGE IMPACT

Stormwater runoff currently sheet flows or is piped directly to coastal waters with little to no treatment. As a Master Plan application,
specific stormwater solutions are not shown. Probable techniques are discussed in the applicant’s Impact Statement. These will be
established during more detailed Site Plan review as phases are proposed and proposed grading is established. Modern
redevelopments of previously developed sites typically improve stormwater management as modern stormwater guidelines must be
met. A goal will be to determine whether drainage solutions adequately protect tidal wetlands that encompass much of the site.
Erosion and Sedimentation Control bonding will be required prior to development, as will DEEP permitting for stormwater
management activities.

Department of Planning recommendation regarding project feasibility: FEASIBLE

SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL

Both residential and commercial municipal solid waste disposal in Stonington are Pay-As-You-Throw (PAYT) programs. Since the PAYT
program is essentially paid for by the user, there should be little financial impact to the Solid Waste budget.

Department of Planning recommendation regarding project feasibility: FEASIBLE

Page 9 of 35
FIRE PROTECTION CAPABILITY
Comments from the Mystic Fire District have not been received. Typical fire safety enhancements such as wider drives, hydrants and
building specifications can be accommodated during Site Plan reviews.

Department of Planning recommendation regarding project feasibility: FEASIBLE

HIGHWAY MAINTENANCE
No new public streets are proposed as part of this development. Private drives will be maintained and plowed by the property owner.

Department of Planning recommendation regarding project feasibility: FEASIBLE

IMPACT ON THE CAPACITY OF THE TOWN'S SCHOOL SYSTEM

Connecticut General Statutes are silent about school capacity as a factor for zoning applications (Chapter 124), and Connecticut courts
have not accepted school impact as a valid determination of project feasibility. Therefore, school capacity should not be a factor for
consideration. The applicant’s Fiscal Impact Study concludes that after projected revenues and expenses, including education costs,
are accounted for the development will result in $120,719 in annual tax revenue for the Town.

ABILITY OF THE NETWORK OF PUBLIC STREETS (LOCAL AND STATE) TO CARRY ADEQUATELY THE EXPECTED INCREASE IN TRAFFIC.
The project site fronts on Washington and Willow Streets. These streets, along with Cottrell St., are considered “Minor Feeder Roads
(Local Streets)” in the POCD. Their narrow village scale, as well as the residential character of much of Washington and Willow Streets
make traffic an important issue. As all readers know, the general area can experience significant congestion during the tourist season
which is exacerbated by the opening drawbridge.

The applicant has submitted a traffic impact and access study prepared by a professional engineer. The study analyzes current traffic
patterns and congestion and projects additional trips to and from the development based on industry standards set forth by the
Institute of Transportation Engineers. Of note is that the study’s findings are based on the Town making Cottrell St. one-way
southbound. An earlier version of the study also assumed that Willow St. would become one-way northbound. (Willow St.
modifications were removed from the study due to the Police Commission’s lack of support for this change.) Implementation of the
change to Cottrell Street’s direction is a concept that was recently discussed at an informal public meeting and appears to be generally
supported by the Police Commission. However, at this point no additional steps have been taken to further design or implement the
change. Cottrell St. modifications would be expected to add more public parking spaces, although no details have been developed.

Page 10 of 35
The applicant’s traffic impact study concludes traffic operations on the surrounding roadways and intersections will not experience
undue congestion with the addition of the traffic generated by the proposed mixed-use development (assuming Cottrell becomes one-
way southbound). No reduction is safety will occur due to the development as proposed. The study indicates that there will be no
change in the Level of Service during peak hours with the exceptions (see study for details):

PROJECTED CHANGE TO LEVEL OF SERVICE DUE TO DEVELOPMENT (WITH COTTRELL AS ONE-WAY SOUTHBOUND)
AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Saturday Midday Peak Hour
E. Main & Willow northbound Washington & Willow eastbound E. Main & Willow northbound
LOS from B to C LOS from A to B LOS from C to D
Washington & Broadway westbound Washington & Broadway eastbound
LOS from B to C LOS from C to D
Notes:
• Study also mentions other intersections that are projected to have decreased level of service even under “no-build” conditions due to typical increases in
area traffic.
• Reduction in Level of Service by one letter can be the result of a slight delay projected for an intersection – the equivalent of scoring a 79 vs. an 80 on a test.

The study concludes that if Cottrell St. is maintained as a two-way street, the northbound intersection with Washington St. will
continue to operate at poor levels of service (LOS F) as it already does during peak hours. Should the Commission approve this
application, it may want to consider linking the approval to the Town’s modification of Cottrell Street’s directionality.

Page 11 of 35
 Traffic Studies and “Level of Service”
Planning and Zoning Commissions often encounter traffic studies as part of their review of local developments. A key term in traffic studies is “Level of Service”, which is a
measure of traffic congestion (traffic delay). Graded similar to a report card, Level of Service A = free flowing traffic while Level of Service F = very congested with significant
delays. These levels are standardized throughout the industry through measures published by the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE).

Traffic studies will usually measure the Level of Service of a nearby intersection, listed as A-F, and then estimate the number of added vehicles generated by a proposed
development at peak times. Estimates of projected traffic are also based on ITE standards. Comparing the two measures shows the amount of delay the average motorist
will experience at the intersection.

The benefit of the Level of Service concept is its standardization and objectivity. While developers may claim their projects will add little traffic and opponents may claim
projects will lead to gridlock, the Level of Service concept helps objectify the expected impacts of developments.

A criticism of the Level of Service concept its focus on moving vehicular traffic at the expense of other factors. Many road widening projects throughout the country have
been done in the name of increasing Level of Service but have ultimately had destructive impacts on local communities and other users of the roads including pedestrians,
cyclists, local residents and business communities. In short, how fast traffic can get through an intersection is not the ultimate measure of a neighborhood’s success or value.
Many of the most desirable places to live, work and visit are those with “unacceptable” Levels of Service where drivers may have to wait longer at a traffic light. Many
communities are working towards a more holistic approach towards road design that incorporates all forms of transportation and not solely the automobile. This “Complete
Streets” approach takes into consideration pedestrians and cyclists as users of roads and looks at all of the impacts to the area.

The traffic study analyses accident history at various intersections (E. Main & Willow has had the most with 12 accidents over the past
3½ years). The study concludes that there are not unusual conditions that will be worsened by the development.

Prior to development, traffic impacts must also be approved by the CT Office of State Traffic Administration (OSTA) for being
considered a “Major Traffic Generator.” This review is primarily focused on impacts to State roads.

Pedestrian transportation will be enhanced with the extension of the boardwalk and additional sidewalks throughout the site. During
their review, the Police Commission stressed that increased automobile and pedestrian trips as a result of this application, particularly
with added off-site parking, should lead to greater investment in neighborhood sidewalks adjacent to the development.

Water-based transportation will be enhanced with the additional slips, new boat basin and dredging.

Page 12 of 35
Parking
The NDD explicitly offers flexibility regarding bulk and use requirements. Shared Parking, Parking Reductions and Off-Site Parking are
all possible in the zone. These tools are commonly used by the Commission in commercial districts, particularly in village areas where
customers, employees and residents often park once and utilize more than one establishment. Without the benefit of Shared Parking,
the entire development would normally require approximately 387 on-site spaces. Plans proposed 318 on-site with 54 additional
spaces provided off-site within 500’ during peak hours – a total of 372. An additional 56 will be available at the Mystic Packer Building
through shuttle service during events – a total of 428. Many of the uses including the hotel and all residential uses will feature ground
level parking. This is partially result of floodplain requirements but also reduces the percentage of the site used for parking lots and
reduces parking conflicts by clearly delineating who can park beneath buildings.

Page 13 of 35
PARKING DEMAND SUMMARY
USE STANDARD PER # NORMALLY # PROPOSED BY % CHANGE NOTES
ZONING REQUIRED PER APPLICANT AFTER
ZONING BASED ON CONSIDERATION OF
INDIVIDUAL USES SHARED PARKING

Hotel (45 rooms, 8 1 space / room 53 53 0%

employees) + 1 / employee
Boat slips (120) 0.5 spaces / slip 60 34 -43% A percentage of boaters are assumed to use other
establishments on site. 35 slips kept for transient boaters
who will not need parking.

New restaurant 1 space / 4 seats 80 71 -11% A percentage of customers are expected to be pedestrians
(200 seats, 30 + 1 / employee parking elsewhere, site residents and hotel guests.
employees)

Red 36 restaurant 1 space / 4 seats 43 38 -12% A percentage of customers are expected to be pedestrians
(100 seats, 15 + 1 / employee parking elsewhere, site residents and hotel guests.
employees + 3
spaces for retail)
Apt. building (25 2 spaces / unit + 1 / 4 56 56 0%
units) spaces guest parking
Townhouses (16 2 spaces / unit + 1 / 4 36 36 0%
units) spaces guest parking
Multi-family (6 2 spaces / unit + 1 / 4 14 14 0%
units) spaces guest parking
Marine / event 1 space / 250SF office 43 13 -70% Zoning has no specific standard for "event spaces" or "places
bldg. + 1 space / 4 seats of assembly." 1 per 4 seats is an estimate based on
"assembly" "church" standard. Office workers expected to not utilize
many spaces during peak restaurant hours. Off-site shuttle
service planned for larger events.

Kayak facility (retail 1 space / 200SF 2 2 0%

based on existing
use)
TOTAL 387 317 (318 on site -18%
provided)
Note: The Town bases parking requirements on # of employees per largest shift in order to not double count demand.

Page 14 of 35
 PARKING SUPPLY SUMMARY
On-site spaces provided: 318
Off-site spaces provided within 500': 54
Total available with off-site spaces: 372
Off-site spaces available at Mystic 56
Packer Building (shuttle service):
Total available with shuttle service: 428

Department of Planning recommendation regarding project feasibility: FEASIBLE PER SUBMITTED ANALYSIS. Commission must
decide appropriate level of shared parking and whether increases in projected traffic are acceptable for the area.

THE PROVISIONS FOR THE PRESERVATION OF SIGNIFICANT HISTORIC, CULTURAL OR ENVIRONMENTAL FEATURES ARE ADEQUATE
TO PRESERVE THEM (including, but not limited to, easements, rights-of-way, reservation and use restrictions on wetlands, bedrock
outcrops, other morphologic features and any archaeological or cultural remains).
As stated above, the site has historically been used for various manufacturing uses including ship building. The site is just outside of
the Mystic Bridge National Register Historic District. Existing marine commercial buildings and a 1920’s house are proposed to be
demolished.

The applicant’s Natural Resource Inventory details areas of tidal wetlands on the site which are of varying quality. A small area of low-
functioning tidal wetland is expected to be filled near the Cottrell / Washington intersection for shoreline stabilization. DEEP
permitting will be required. A living shoreline is proposed near the townhouses. Phragmites will be removed from all wetland areas
and native wetland vegetation will be planted in appropriate areas.

NDD regulations require a 50’ Non-Infringement Area from tidal wetlands or coastal waters (7.21.6.3). Per the regulation, this may be
reduced to 0’ by the Commission. Very little of this 50’ area is currently undisturbed.

Proposed shoreline enhancements, boat basin and dredging will require extensive permitting from DEEP and US Army Corps of
Engineers. DEEP’s Natural Diversity Database Map shows no state or federal listed species or significant natural communities in or
near this area.

Page 15 of 35
Some soil contamination exists in the form of PAH compounds in fill adjacent to an underground storage tank. Additional testing will
be required. The applicants plan to clean dredge material and use as fill to mitigate this area. This mitigation must be approved by
DEEP prior to any development.

The entire site is located in the FEMA 1% Flood Hazard Area (AE Zone), as is virtually all of Mystic. (Some edges along the coast fall in
the “Coastal AE” Zone.) All buildings must conform to FEMA standards and are shown to be elevated above the base flood elevation,
most with parking on the ground level. Additional discussion regarding flood hazard and coastal resilience issues are below.

Zone Changes affecting coastal areas are required to conform to the State’s Coastal Management Act per State Statutes Section 22a-
104(e). The Act includes several policy goals geared toward protection of coastal resources, enhancement of coastal public access and
promotion / preservation of water-dependent uses along the coast. At this time comments have not been received from DEEP
regarding conformance; these comments are expected prior to the hearing. If the Master Plan is approved, Coastal Area Management
applications will be required along with each Site Plan Application submitted.

Department of Planning recommendation regarding project feasibility: FEASIBLE

Project Density (6.3.4.2)

The proposed development consists of 47 dwelling units on 7.5 acres (NDD uplands only). Land density is measured based on the
number of units per acre. The density of 6.3 units per acre proposed equals roughly 1 unit per 6,914SF of land area. The development
uses the minimum tier of density allowed in the NDD (8 units per acre = max. 60 units). Regulations allow a theoretical maximum of
90 units if all units were to be constructed over commercial uses.

Department of Planning Recommendation regarding Project Density: FEASIBLE.

Site Design Consideration / Modifications (6.3.4.3)

NDD regulations call for the Commission to carefully analyze buffers between a development and surrounding residential
neighborhoods. Plans include landscaping along Washington St. in front of the proposed multi-family units and hotel (and in various
areas interior to the site).

Page 16 of 35
 Performance Buffers.
Section 7.21.6.3.1
“The Commission will carefully analyze
any buffers between the NDD and
surrounding residential neighborhoods
and may tailor buffers to include greater
setbacks, landscaping, fences, walls, and
berms, considering the relative heights
of the uses on each side of the buffer …”

A Lighting Plan is included as part of the Master Plan which includes full cut off, historic-style lighting with minimal lighting adjacent
to the residential neighborhood.

Few details regarding signage are included at the Master Plan stage. An 18SF detached sign is proposed at the site entrance on
Washington.

Department of Planning Recommendation regarding Site Design consideration and modifications: FEASIBLE

Page 17 of 35
Impacts on Adjoining Neighborhood’s Historic Features and the Town in
General, and Possible Mitigating Measures (6.3.4.4)
As stated above, all existing structures except for Red 36 are proposed to be demolished. The property is outside of (but adjacent to)
the Mystic Bridge National Register Historic District. The application does not include an analysis of whether the existing buildings are
salvageable to include in the proposal. However, there is often a conflict between the goals of historic preservation and coastal
resilience. Renovating the existing structures while making them floodproofed to current FEMA standards may not be realistic in their
condition.

Regarding general impacts the Town, the applicant has submitted a Fiscal Impact Analysis that comes to the following conclusions:
• Total projected annual municipal revenue of $493,977, with $120,719 positive fiscal impact after expected expenditures (an
annual increase of $43,146 over the site’s current fiscal impact).
• 155 full time equivalent permanent jobs and 166 construction jobs projected.
• Approximately $295,680 of direct consumer spending in the community and $17,864,500 in economic activity and consumer
spending related to the commercial uses generating approximately $2.5 million in State sales and hotel tax.

Department of Planning Recommendation: FEASIBLE

Architectural Treatments in Terms of Massiveness, Building Bulk, Form,

Configuration and Materials (6.3.4.5)
The site has been designed to locate intense uses and taller buildings towards the southwestern end of the site away from the
residential neighborhood on Washington St. The apartment building will be the tallest building in Mystic at 72’ to the tallest
mechanical feature and 67’ to the roof. Please note that since grading plans have not been submitted, it is possible that buildings
could be constructed at raised elevations. Preliminary building designs of all buildings have been submitted. A formal Architectural
Design Review Board application is not required for Master Plans. However, the Board reviewed the application with a general positive
consensus and no major issues noted. ADRB review will be required for each Site Plan submittal.

Page 18 of 35
Comments received from the Groton Planning Commission indicated concern with the impacts
of building height from their side of the river among other issues (see comments below). There
How tall can buildings be in
have been questions from both towns as to whether the 3D renderings show accurate relative the NDD?
heights. The applicant’s response is that they are accurate and apparent discrepancies are due
NDD maximum height is “as specifically
to differing grades. approved on the Master Plan.”

A stated design goal has been to reflect architectural features found throughout Mystic while The Commission has significant
not pretending to be historic. discretion regarding building height
and the reduction thereof. This also
applies to the “Coastal Design Height”
Department of Planning Recommendation: FEASIBLE – 3D renderings should be verified. which normally limits height along the
coast.

Summary of Possible Impacts

Below are possible positive and negative impacts of the development for the Commission to consider (several of these are opposite
sides of the same issue):

Possible positive impacts:

• Economic activity – property tax / grand list enhancement, jobs, increased local activity and spending at other area businesses.
• Enhanced coastal public access in the form of the extended boardwalk, crescent park, slips and boat basin.
• Enhanced protections from storm surges due to new bulkhead.
• Possible stormwater enhancements over current conditions.
• Tidal wetland enhancements including living shoreline.
• Elimination of marina uses such as boat repair which present environmental risks.
• Added parking spaces in downtown Mystic (assuming parking demand does not exceed supply)
• Aesthetic improvement of new buildings, boardwalk and park over dilapidated buildings and boat storage.
• Non-conforming structures will be replaced by new buildings that comply with current FEMA floodplain requirements.
• Additional housing units needed as per SCCOG’s Regional Housing Study.
• Possible increased property values for neighbors.

Page 19 of 35
Possible negative impacts:
• Traffic impacts on the surrounding area – notably residential streets and key intersections.
• Parking impacts on neighboring streets (if parking demand exceeds supply) – particularly if plans for off-site parking do not
materialize.
• Environmental impacts should development lead to negative impacts to coastal waters and tidal wetlands.
• Possible obstruction of home owners’ coastal views.
• Aesthetic impacts of tall / large buildings adjacent to historic residential neighborhood.
• Loss of some marine commercial activities.
• Demolition of older marine commercial structures and house. (The site is not part of the adjacent Mystic Bridge National
Register Historic District).
• Addition of new commercial and residential construction in a flood hazard area subject to storm surge (although not in a
“Coastal A Zone or V Zone”).
• Possible management / nuisance impacts to neighbors, such as noise, bad customer behavior, etc., particularly if many dwelling
units become short term rentals.
• Possible decreased property values for neighbors.

Page 20 of 35
Plan of Conservation and Development (POCD)
The 2015 Stonington Plan of Conservation and Development (“POCD” or “the Plan”), does not offer specific recommendations for the
redevelopment of this property. The Future Land Use Plan on page 128, recommends “marine commercial” uses on the site in keeping
with current zoning.

POCD Future Land Use Plan

Page 21 of 35
The POCD offers the following recommended policies and tasks that may relate to this application.
CHAPTER 3. COASTAL RESOURCES
3.1 Protect and Restore Coastal Resources
Policy 3.1.1 – Protect environmentally sensitive coastal areas and hazard-prone areas such as coastal flood plains and coastal wetlands.
Policy 3.1.2 – Restore impaired coastal resources such as tidal wetlands wherever possible.
3.2 Guide development in coastal areas
Policy 3.2.1 – Review development proposals, public and private, to ensure local, state and federal coastal policies are implemented.
Policy 3.2.2 – Use “green infrastructure” techniques to manage stormwater, avoiding structure solutions wherever possible.
Policy 3.2.3 – Strive to ensure that all Planning and Zoning development proposals shall address provisions for public access to the coast, its resources and
recreational opportunities.
Policy 3.2.4 – Encourage the use of living shorelines and other non-structural flood and erosion control techniques.
Policy 3.2.5 – Promote water dependent uses in coastal areas.
3.3 Prepare and Plan for Climate Change
Policy 3.3.1 – Plan to adapt to the projected rise in sea level.
Policy 3.3.2 – Discourage new public infrastructure or development in flood prone areas.
Task 3.3.6 – Review regulations to assure that appropriate setbacks for residential uses from the Coastal Jurisdiction Line are provided. Discourage seawalls
as a solution to protecting development when other options are feasible.
Task 3.3.7 – Restrict assisted living facilities, hotels, elderly housing and schools, which have the potential to increase exposure of vulnerable populations in
coastal flood hazard areas.
Task 3.3.8 – Modify regulations for all large scale residential development in flood hazard areas to provide detailed evacuation plans assuring that the routes
are not to be subject to flooding themselves.
CHAPTER 5. NATURAL RESOURCES
5.1 Protect Water Quality and Quantity
Policy 5.1.1 – Encourage Low Impact Development (LID) standards for site designs that maximize pervious surfaces, promote infiltration of stormwater and
reduce runoff.
Policy 5.1.8 – Encourage transportation policies that reduce automobile dependence.
5.2 Protect Inland and Coastal Wetlands
Policy 5.2.1 – Require vegetative buffers, swales and other appropriate drainage diversion and minimization methods to wetland and watercourses to filter
pollutants from stormwater runoff.
CHAPTER 7. SCENIC AND HISTORIC RESOURCES
7.1 Maintain the Scenic Character of the Town
Policy 7.1.5 – Preserve public views to the water whenever feasible when siting waterfront structures and signage.
CHAPTER 8. VILLAGES
8.1 Strengthen and Enhance the Village Centers
Policy 8.1.1 – Seek to attract a mix of residential, retail and service uses to address everyday village needs and tourists.
Task 8.1.5 – Develop more details neighborhood plans for each village of Mystic, Old Mystic and Pawcatuck.
8.2 Encourage and Support Vibrant Villages.

Page 22 of 35
Policy 8.2.2 – Maintain and improve pedestrian and bicycle access, safety and comfort within village areas and points of interest.
Policy 8.2.3 – As riverside properties are redeveloped in the villages, encourage increased public access.
Task 8.2.5 – Review the NDD and IHRD zoning requirements for potential updates.
8.3 Address Village Business Needs
Policy 8.3.1 – Support and strengthen existing businesses (business retention).
Policy 8.3.2 – Encourage investment in commercial properties.
Task 8.3.3 – Address parking issues.
CHAPTER 9. HOUSING
9.1 Diversity our Housing Portfolio
Policy 9.1.1 – Encourage diversification of the housing stock.
Task 9.1.5 – Modify zoning regulations to make more provision for mixed use development, including residential units.
9.2 Strengthen Residential Development
Policy 9.2.1 – Within the village areas, promote new development, infill development and redevelopment which are in keeping with the overall character of
the neighborhood.
Policy 9.2.3 – Encourage mixed use buildings, as appropriate, on major streets in village areas.
CHAPTER 10. COMMERCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT
10.1 Increase Commercial Tax Base
Policy 10.1.1 – Encourage appropriate economic development.
Policy 10.1.2 – Strive to diversify and increase the tax base annually.
Task 10.1.4 – Encourage bringing a new 100+ employer to Town in the next 10 years.
10.2 Guide Business Development
Policy 10.2.1 – Encourage re-use of the mills and other underutilized commercial and industrial sites.
Policy 10.2.3 – Strive to preserve business-zoned land for economic development purposes.
Task 10.2.13 – Investigate increased parking flexibility in parking regulations.
10.3 - Retain, Support and Encourage Business Development.
Task 10.3.2 – Work with local business to assure their expansion take place in Town whenever possible.
10.4 Maintain and Promote the Town’s Economic Drivers
Policy 10.1.4 – Promote economic drivers including but not limited to tourism, high value manufacturing, research and development, retirement/senior care
agriculture and marine services.
Task 10.4.4 – Develop ways to make tourist attractions/destinations more connected/integrated and more easily navigable via different forms of
transportation, including bikes, sidewalks, public transportation, water taxi, etc.
Task 10.4.6 – Investigate changes to address some of the unique requirements of small and large marinas.
CHAPTER 12. UTILITIES
12.2 Manage Public Sewer Service
Policy 12.2.2 – Maintain sufficient, effective and compliant sewer plant capacity for Town businesses and residents.

Page 23 of 35
 CHAPTER 13. TRANSPORTATION
13.1 Address Roadway Needs
Task 13.1.3 – Explore means to ease in season traffic congestion.
13.2 Provide for Pedestrians
Policy 13.2.2 – Promote connections to neighborhoods, villages and other activity nodes with sidewalks or trails.

Coastal Resilience Plan

The Town’s Coastal Resilience Plan was adopted as an appendix to the POCD in 2018. Projections indicate that most of downtown
Mystic will be subject to flood depths of 5’ – 10’ during a hypothetical “100-year storm” in 2050. The subject property is not shown
to be at greater risk than the rest of downtown Mystic. (Proposed townhome area is higher than much of its surroundings.) FEMA’s
flood maps show that the property is not literally expected to be subject to wave action during a 100-year storm, although the coastal
flood zone boundary is directly adjacent to upland areas. (FEMA’s maps only attempt to quantify one particular storm scenario and
they do not account for sea level rise projections.) The proposal both increases resilience by adding a new bulkhead along Cottrell St.
and adds risk by placing new residents, hotel guests and structures directly adjacent to the coast. The extent of protection offered by
the bulkhead is not established at this time. Non-conforming structures will be replaced with safer new buildings that will comply
with FEMA standards.

Elements in the Coastal Resilience Plan that are addressed through this application include:
• Public-private partnership (P3) cost sharing approach (page vii)
• Pursuit of grants and non-local funding (page vii)
• Protection of highly vulnerable physical assets, tourism economy and historic resources (page 23)
• Coastal flood barrier in location recommended on page 57.

Page 24 of 35
COASTAL RESILIENCE PLAN

Mystic Flood Vulnerability

2050 100-Year Storm

SITE

Page 25 of 35
Department of Planning Comments to Applicant
Department of Planning comments to applicant dated 4/11/19:
[PARAPHRASED SUMMARY OF APPLICANT’S RESPONSES] – See application file for full responses.

1. Natural Resources Statement includes descriptions of relevant resources but does not provide an expert analysis on the impacts
to these resources that may be expected due to this development and ways these can be mitigated. Such information will
inform the Commission’s decision as to whether to waive the NDD’s 50’ Non-Infringement Area as requested. (Engineered plans
are not expected during this process.) [SOME ADDITIONAL INFORMATION PROVIDED: DETAILS NOT AVAILABLE WITHOUT
ENGINEERED GRADING PLAN]
2. Sheet C-3 note mentions wetlands filling. Please provide information on where such filling is expected to occur and the general
scope of grading expected particularly for the townhouses. [SMALL, LOW QUALITY AREA MAY BE FILLED NEAR COTTRELL /
WASHINGTON INTERSECTION FOR SHORELINE STABILIZATION. DEEP PERMITTING WILL BE REQUIRED. NO FILL NEAR
TOWNHOUSES.]
3. Can the townhouses be reoriented to provide more of a buffer from the wetlands? [APPLICANTS RESPONSE: MODIFICATIONS
WOULD ADVERSLY IMPACT REQUIRED PARKING FOR MARINA.]
4. The solitary townhouse unit may be considered a prohibited single family residential use per the NDD (7.21.6.4). Can this unit be
attached to the others? [UNIT CONNECTED TO ADJACENT TOWNHOUSES ON REVISED PLANS.]
5. Will the tidal wetland areas currently characterized by invasive species per the Natural Resources Statement be mitigated /
enhanced as part of this redevelopment? [PHRAGMITES WILL BE ERADICATED FROM ENTIRE SITE. NATIVE VEGETATION
REPLANTED IN SOME AREAS]
6. Master Plan should generally identify areas where stormwater management strategies, such as rain gardens, are expected to be
used. [APPLICANT’S RESPONSE: SPECIFICS NOT POSSIBLE WITHOUT ENGINEERED GRADING PLANS. LIST OF POSSIBLE
METHODS INCLUDED. LIKELY LOCATIONS INCLUDE PARKING AREAS AND AMPHITHEATER]
7. Per the Town’s GIS, the apartment building may slightly extend into the Coastal AE zone which would require construction to V-
Zone standards. [COASTAL AE ZONE BOUNDARY ADDED TO PLANS. ALL BUILDINGS ARE NOW LANDWARD OF THIS LINE.]
8. The traffic study bases its conclusions on the hypothetical one-way street pattern on Cottrell and Willow. This idea has been
conceptually discussed at a public meeting but the town has yet to take any other steps to advance this idea. Short of action by
the Police Commission and other community leaders to modify the road layout and fund associated changes, PZC will have to
analyze traffic impacts to the current road layout. [APPLICANT’S RESPONSE: BASING MASTER PLAN ON PROPOSED
INFRASTRUCTURE CHANGE IS APPROPRIATE SINCE SITE PLAN APPROVAL IS STILL NECESSARY. REVISED TRAFFIC STUDY IS
BASED ON ONE WAY COTTRELL ST. WITH WILLOW ST REMAINING 2-WAY]

Page 26 of 35
9. Per my calculations, the proposal would require 338 parking spaces, not including employees for the hotel, new restaurant and
possibly additional employees for Red 36 (only 9 per shift were estimated in 2012). These estimates are needed to understand
the parking impact and relief requested. (Please see the attached draft parking calculations.) While the Commission may
approve Shared Parking and Off-Site Parking in the NDD, a Parking Assessment, prepared by a professional engineer and
analyzing expected levels of parking demand and appropriate supply, should be submitted as per Section 7.10.2.7. [MODIFIED
PARKING CALCULATIONS AND SHARED PARKING ASSESSMENT HAVE BEEN SUBMITTED THAT MORE CLEARLY ADDRESS
PARKING]
10. Application references off-site parking areas within 500’ and shuttle parking for events. Are these sites established? [SITES
WITHIN 500’ INCLUDE WILLOW ST MEDICAL OFFICE AND MYSTIC OIL ON JACKSON AVE. MYSTIC PACKER BUILDING, WHICH IS
BEYOND 500’, WILL BE AVAILABLE FOR SPECIAL EVENTS.]
11. Plans list 18 off-site parking spaces available at the adjacent medical office building. Please provide verification of the owner’s
general consent to this arrangement. (Legal documents not required at this stage.) [SIGNED INTENTS TO LEASE WITH MEDICAL
OFFICE BUILDING AND MYSTIC OIL HAVE BEEN SUBMITTED]
12. Please include parking layout of the adjacent Allen Spool Mill on plans to clarify internal traffic flows. [SHOWN ON UPDATED
PARKING PLAN]
13. Please verify the relative heights in the 3D rendering. Image appears to show the 37’ tall, 3 ½ story multi-family building as
shorter than the 2 story medical office building. [APPLICANT’S RESPONSE: RELATIVE HEIGHTS ARE CORRECT. DIFFERENCE IS
DUE TO RELATIVE ELEVATIONS OF BUILDINGS.]

Other Comments Received

This application was routed to the following offices for comment:

TOWN ENGINEER – 4/15/19 Comments:

I have reviewed the above referenced application including Master Plans & Reports and offer the following preliminary comments:

Smiler’s Wharf – Mystic, Connecticut

Master Plan & Reports Prepared by:
Owner: Noank Shipyard, Inc.
General Manager Harry Boardsen
Attrney: William Sweeney, Esq./Tobin, Carberry, O’Malley, Riley & Selinger, P.C.
Architect: Meg Lyons Architects
Civil Engineer: Luchs Consulting Engineers, LLC
Traffic Engineer: Bryant Associates, Inc.

Page 27 of 35
 Environmental Consultant: Jane K. Stahl, LLC

Comments:
Permits Required:
1. In addition to local permits, the application may require multiple state and federal permits including but not limited to:
a. CT DOT, Office of the State Traffic Administration (OSTA) permit for being considered a Major Traffic Generator (Proposal of 100,000 sf
or more of gross floor area or proposal of 200 or more proposed parking spaces).
b. CTDEEP/OLISP:
i. Structures, Dredging and Fill & Tidal Wetlands Permit for activity proposed waterward of the Coastal Jurisdiction Line
ii. CTDEEP – 401 Water Quality Certification
iii. CTDEEP - General Permit for the Discharge of Stormwater and Dewatering Wastewaters from Construction Activities.

c. US Army Corps of Engineers:

i. Review by the USACOE for compliance with Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899 and Section 404 Clean Water Act
for the discharge of dredged material into waters of the US.

Stormwater Management:
2. Water quality standards will be of upmost importance with this application. The applicant will be responsible for demonstrating compliance with
water quality standards as currently set forth in the CT Stormwater Quality Manual. Low impact development Best Management Practices
(BMP’s) will be required with additional emphasis placed on post construction maintenance guidelines and responsibilities.
a. Effective July 1, 2019, the CTDEEP general permit for the Discharge of Stormwater from Small Municipal Separate Storm Sewer Systems
requires developers to retain the water quality volume on the site to the maximum extent practicable in accordance with section
6(a)(5)(B)(i, ii, iii, & iv). If requirements cannot be met as set forth in the MS4 standards, a fee in lieu of the balance of the requirement
will be required.

Flood Hazard Compliance:

3. Effective October 1, 2018, the CT State Building Code requires Coastal AE zones to follow V-zone standards for construction. Local Zoning
Regulations have been modified to be consistent with this change. As such, the Limit of Moderate Wave Action (LIMWA) line needs to illustrated
on the site plans with the proper designation of Coastal A zones. Any construction proposed within the Coastal A zone will be reviewed for
compliance with V-zone standards.

Traffic:
4. The traffic report assesses the site and surrounding road network system with an assumed change in the current traffic circulation pattern, (ie. -
proposed one-way direction for Cottrell St and Willow St). As these changes are not currently approved, the applicant should re-evaluate the
impact of the proposed development with current traffic circulation patterns.
5. Although the Traffic Impact Analysis indicates in its closing statement, “Traffic operations on the surrounding roadways and intersections will not
experience undue congestion with the addition of the traffic generated by the proposed mixed-use development. & No reduction in safety will
occur due to the development as a proposed”, it should be noted the future Level of Service assuming full build conditions does degrade at
multiple nearby intersections. This will result in additional congestion and delay time contrary to the engineers closing statement.

Page 28 of 35
WATER POLLUTION CONTROL AUTHORITY – 4/9/19 Comments:
I have reviewed the above referenced P&Z application and offer the following:

Until such time that we receive approvals from DEEP and the funding for use of the transmission line from Mystic to the Borough no additional flows from
future developments will be accepted at the Mystic Facility.

ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN REVIEW BOARD – 3/11/19 Comments from draft minutes:

…Mr. McKinley stated that the applicants should include a landscape architect and/or urban design consultant on their team. The Town may also need input
from an urban design consultant when reviewing this project. Mr. McKinley praised the professional approach of the design team. Ms. Driscoll recommended
meeting LEED Neighborhood standards and praised the building designs. Multi-family residential buildings should have a more colonial design to better fit in
to the existing neighborhood. Mr. Delaney praised the proposal and stated that it meets the Town’s Design Guidelines document. Mr. Boardsen stated that
complete buildout would take 4-5 years. The application does not include retail uses which he believes should remain closer to E. Main St.
Mr. McKinley summarized the positive consensus of the Board with no major issues noted. No motion was made by the Board.

POLICE COMMISSION - 5/9/19 Comments:

At the May 9, 2019 meeting of the Board of Police Commissions, the above referenced matter was presented to the Commission by numerous people
representing the project, plus numerous residents commented on the project. Below please find the comments to be forwarded to Planning & Zoning by the
Board of Police Commissioners:

“Chairman entertained a motion to pass comments to Planning and Zoning, after hearing the concerns of neighbors, that developers address parking and safety
concerns. Commission Gourd so moved after adding to motion to ask town to consider installation of sidewalks to and from offsite parking to benefit safety,
given economic benefits to town. Commissioner Tabor seconded motion. All in favor, motion approved.”

ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION – 5/23/19 Comments

The Stonington Economic Development commission offers this Letter of Support for the proposed contemporized zoning regulation update to NDD, which
would enable reclamation of this under-producing neighborhood and leverage the outstanding location. The EDC has met with the project leaders to review
the proposal’s details and voted unanimously its backing.

The high-quality project will deliver substantial economic benefit to the Town, while opening the waterfront for the aesthetic and social value of residents,
boaters, and visitors. Economic advantages include:

• Significant annual tax revenue to the Town of $494K. Economic modeling allocates $163K for General Government expense, $210K for Stonington
Public Schools, and $121K incremental tax revenue added to the general fund for other Town needs. Note: the assumptions result in conservatively
high Government and School expense allocations – the $121K general fund contribution is a lower bound. Yet, no matter how the tax revenue is
allocated, the Town realizes a total of $494K incremental annual tax revenue.
• One-time permitting and WPCA sewer connection fees total $619K, defraying Town project-specific costs including urgent sewer upgrades.
• 155 full-time jobs created by the development, as well as 166 construction-related jobs during the multi-year build-phase.

Page 29 of 35
 • State sales tax revenue of $2.3 million from $14.6 million of new commercial sales-driven economic activity per year.
• $296K per year direct consumer spending from new Smiler’s Wharf residents, supporting local businesses. The addition of 47 residences and 45 hotel
rooms within easy walking distance of the downtown Mystic retail district will add welcomed demand and increase off-season local business
resiliency.
• Residents realize a return on tax dollars already paid with pending State bonding to shore up the marina basin, enhancing coastal resiliency in flood-
prone Mystic.
• The proposal includes 20,000 square feet of open green spaces and improved access to waterfront for the community to enjoy. Economic benefits of
green space include increased property values of surrounding neighborhoods and an attraction that draws customers for the benefit of Mystic
businesses.

In summary, the EDC strongly urges approval of the application to contemporize zoning that will positively transform this area and add to Mystic’s appeal. The
EDC urges the PZC – and the Stonington Community – to support the proposed responsible development.

CONSERVATION COMMISSION – 4/22/19 Comments from draft minutes:

Motion: The Commission is in support of converting from the Marine Commercial zone to NDD as this master plan goes toward protection and conservation of
the living shoreline, tidal wetlands and increases public access (Michael Schefers, Stephanie Hayes-Houlihan). Passed unanimously except for an abstention by
Sheila Lyons.

TOWN OF GROTON PLANNING COMMISSION – 5/6/19 Comments:

On April 23, 2019, the Planning Commission reviewed the referral referenced above and made the following comments:

Building Height and Mass:

• The proposed building heights for the hotel (63-ft) and apartments (74-ft) appear to be significantly out of scale and character with existing and new
development within the Downtown Mystic area. The current and proposed zoning regulations in Groton limit new development to 40-feet in the Downtown
Mystic area and along Water Street. Although the proposed NDD in Stonington allows height to be determined by a master plan, consistency with existing
development and development standards of the Downtown Mystic area should be maintained.

• Please check the heights in Section 22 of the report for all Town of Groton buildings used to make a justification of proposed heights on this site, including
the Main Block, Power House, and Randall’s Wharf. The new Central Hall Building was approved at a maximum height of 50-ft and mirrors the height and
mass of the historic Main Block building on the opposite side of the street (the Main Block building does have a minor accessory roof structure that is over
50-ft in height but is not significantly visible from the street or surrounding area). The Power House Building, an existing historic structure, had building
modifications approved at a maximum height of 51-ft and Randall’s Wharf is less than 50-ft in height.

• A more accurate scaled visual representation of the Groton side of the river that is consistent with the scale on the Stonington side of the river should be
provided. (See Title sheet and MP-20 and MP-21 of the Meg Lyons plans). The scale of the diagrams appear to be skewed and there appears to be many
significantly tall buildings on the Groton side along Water Street that are either not in existence or are only 2 or 3 stories in height.

Page 30 of 35
FEMA/Stormwater:
• Additional information should be provided to address development in the flood hazard area for this site, including information on the extent and quantity
of fill within the flood hazard area and the extent of any increase in impervious surface on the site.

• The project should address the issue of flooding on existing roadways within the Downtown Mystic area during storm events and if the proposed
development will have an impact on this flooding during storm events.

• There is concern with any significant increase in impervious surface by this development within the Downtown Mystic area and the water quality impacts
on the Mystic River.

Public Access along the River:

• The Commission recommends that public access be promoted along the river for all proposed non-water dependent uses and that it be consistent with
Groton’s goal that the public access be directly along the river and separated from vehicular/parking lot development.

Traffic:
• There is a major concern that there will be a significant increase in traffic within Downtown Mystic area from this development.

Noise:
• There is significant concern with the potential major increase in nighttime noise from the proposed development for outdoor activities associated with this
development and impact to the mixed use and residential neighborhoods in the Town of Groton. Current outdoor uses/activities in Groton, such as patios
and decks at restaurants, require a Special Permit and are typically limited to 10:00 pm. The new Groton zoning regulations will limit outdoor activities such
as restaurant patios and decks in Downtown Mystic area to a 10:00 pm closing.

SOUTHEASTERN CONNECTICUT COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENTS – 3/22/19 Comments:

I am writing in response to proposed amendments to the zoning map of the Town of Stonington, as referenced in correspondence dated March 21, 2019. The
proposed amendments were referred to this agency pursuant to Section 8-3b of the Connecticut General Statutes, and were received by e-mail on the same day.

The proposed regulation amendments concern property on Washington and Willow Streets in Mystic, and relate to a proposed mixed-use, waterfront
development: Smiler’s Wharf. The proposed amendments would enable development by rezoning a number of parcels from the Maritime Commercial (MC-80)
District to the Neighborhood Development District (NDD).

Based on a review of the material submitted, SCCOG staff determined that the proposed amendments will not have an adverse inter-municipal impact.

LEDGE LIGHT HEALTH DISTRICT - 4/9/19 Comments:

LLHD will need a full set of restaurant plans with plan review application packet. LLHD will need to license the hotel. If there is food service or a pool in the hotel,
we will need to review that as well as DPH for the pool. If the townhouses or apartments have a pool, then LLHD & DPH will need to review those plans.

Page 31 of 35
MYSTIC HARBOR MANAGEMENT COMMISSION – 4/4/19 Comments:
Addresses storm water runoff per management plan, approved as stated in April 4, 2019 minutes.

4/4/19 draft minutes:

Mr. Allyn made a motion to approve, as the project contains storm water catch basins to meet runoff retention requirements and thus it is not inconsistent with
the Mystic Harbor Management Plan. Mr. Cook seconded the motion, which was unanimously approved.

ZONING OFFICIAL – 4/1/19 Comments:

No comments at this time.

BUILDING OFFICIAL, AQUARION WATER CO, MYSTIC FIRE DISTRICT: No comments received.

Commission Review
Per Section 6.3.6, the Commission should ensure the following (these standards only apply to Special Use Permits and not Master
Plans, although they are a good guide for the Commission):

• That the proposal maintain the historic growth rate of the Town at one (1%) percent per year. (6.3.6.1). [Regulations require this
finding for Special Use Permits, however, there is no statutory authorization for this issue, and the Town Attorney has provided
guidance that this should not be a factor for consideration. Over the last 30 years the number of housing units in Stonington
has grown from 6,428 to 9,118 -- an annual growth rate of 1.17% or 90 new housing units per year.]

• The proposal offers the least possible disruptions to existing residential neighborhood areas, the environment, or historic features.
(6.3.6.2)

• The proposal would not result in exceeding the capacity of existing Town facilities or infrastructure, or exhaust the supply or
capacity of a public resource. (6.3.6.3).

• The Town's Capital Expenditure Plan is adequate to handle future demands from the proposal. (6.3.6.4).

Other Commission Considerations

In addition to the specific issues which must be weighed above, the following are general questions for the Commission’s
consideration:

Page 32 of 35
• Has enough information been provided to make a decision on whether the property should be rezoned?
o This is the stage during which the Commission has the most discretion. While the Site Plan process would provide more
details, its purpose is to assure compliance with the approved Master Plan.

• Are there modifications to the Master Plan that would enhance its design or better protect neighboring properties from negative
impacts?

• Does the proposal adequately address the NDD’s Statement of Purpose in Section 7.21.2?

Recommended Stipulations
Reserved until after public hearing if the Commission chooses to approve.

Commission Actions Required (within 65 days of the close of the hearing)

• Decision on conformance with the Plan of Conservation of Development and Comprehensive Plan
• Decision on the Master Plan waivers (Coastal Height Limit and Non-Infringement Area)
• Decision on Master Plan / Zone Change application

Page 33 of 35
Draft Resolution
Why include a draft resolution to approve before the public hearing is held?

Draft resolution motions are not the Department of Planning’s endorsement or recommendation of an application. Their
purpose is that if the Commission decides to approve an application, the proper wording / reasons are stated. If the Commission
decides to deny an application, development of a draft denial motion is recommended spelling out reasons for denial.

PZ1908ZC Noank Shipyard, Inc. - Zone Change Map Amendment Master Plan for rezoning a portion of the Seaport Marine site
from a Marine Commercial District (MC-80) to a Neighborhood Development District (NDD) for a mixed-use waterfront
development. Properties located at 2, 4, 10, & 18 Washington St., & Willow St., Mystic. Assessors Map 182 Block 1 Lots 16, 12, 8, 7
& 6. Zones MC-80 & RC-120.

WHEREAS, in accordance with Zoning Regulation Section 7.21.2 the applicant’s proposal is found by the Commission to satisfy the
Statement of Purpose of the Neighborhood Development District (NDD);

WHEREAS, in accordance with Zoning Regulation Section 7.21.3.3, the applicant’s proposal is found by the Commission to satisfy the
eligibility requirements of the NDD;

WHEREAS, in accordance with Zoning Regulation Section 7.21.6, the applicant’s proposal is found by the Commission to satisfy the
specific design standards of the NDD;

WHEREAS, in accordance with Zoning Regulation Section 8.4.3, the applicant’s proposal is found by the Commission to satisfy the
Town’s Master Plan requirements;

WHEREAS, in accordance with Zoning Regulation Section 8.8.2, the applicant’s is found by the Commission to satisfy the Impact
Statement Requirements for Zoning Map Amendments;

WHEREAS, this proposal has been found by the Commission to be consistent with the Town’s Plan of Conservation and Development,
adopted May 7, 2015 as well as the Town’s Comprehensive Plan;

Page 34 of 35
RESOLVED, that the Planning and Zoning Commission of the Town of Stonington has reviewed PZ1908ZC Noank Shipyard and has
determined that this application is in compliance with the Zoning Regulations of the Town of Stonington and is therefore approved:

ADOPTED BY THE Planning and Zoning Commission of the Town of Stonington, Connecticut, this _____th day of ____ 2019.

Application Timeframe
Zoning Map or Regulation Amendments require a Public Hearing in accordance with CT General Statutes
Section 8-3(c) https://www.cga.ct.gov/current/pub/chap_124.htm#sec_8-3 The Commission has 65 days to open the Public Hearing
public hearing and 35 days to conduct the Public Hearing once it is opened unless an extension is granted by Timeframe
the applicant. The Public Hearing timeframe is established in CT General Statutes Section 8-7d CGS 8-7d(a)
https://www.cga.ct.gov/current/pub/chap_124.htm#sec_8-7d

Official Date of
Official Date of Receipt for this application is 3/19/19. Receipt
This hearing was be opened and immediately continued on 5/7/19.
Tonight’s meeting is Public Hearing Day 22 of 35. 65 Days
Deadline for completion of the Public Hearing is 6/11/19 unless an extension is granted by the applicant.
With maximum possible extension, hearing must be closed by 8/15/19. Opening of Public
The Commission will have 65 days to make a decision once the Public Hearing has been closed. Hearing

Per CT General Statutes, the applicant can authorize up to an additional 65 days for the completion of the 35 Days
hearing, or to allow the Commission more time to make a decision. Close of Public
Hearing

65 Days
Commission
Decision

Page 35 of 35