Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Fish Pier Platform topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Sunshine Seafood sues over Fish Pier platform as Stonington officials cite access and safety concerns
Summary
A dispute over a platform at Stonington’s Fish Pier, which users say both enables and obstructs commercial operations, escalated into a lawsuit by Sunshine Seafood. The selectmen have budgeted additional legal funds and continue to weigh access, safety and harbor-management authority while fishermen and dealers offer conflicting accounts.
Sunshine Seafood has filed a lawsuit challenging recent local actions about a platform at Stonington’s Fish Pier, a dispute that selectmen say centers on competing commercial access and safety concerns.
Town Manager Billings informed the board during budget sessions that the town received formal legal papers from Sunshine Seafood related to votes and actions concerning removal and use of the platform. Selectmen discussed increasing the town’s legal budget to cover defense costs; one board member cited legal estimates in the $25,000–$30,000 range.
The platform is used daily by dealers, fishermen and processors, and its presence has split harbor users. Supporters told the board the platform facilitates loading, hoisting and deliveries; critics said trailers, totes and stored equipment block passage to hoists and reduce safe access to the dock. At a March meeting multiple users — including commercial operators and residents — presented differing accounts of how often the platform obstructs operations and whether private property on the pier should remain.
Selectmen described multiple avenues they have explored: enforcement of harbor rules, Harbor Committee recommendations and potential removal of personal property that interferes with safe operations. TM Billings said the town has attempted outreach to Sunshine Seafood and others but reported limited engagement from some parties. At the January budget session John Steed said one option was to refund money paid by a party, referencing an $11,000 payment, as a possible way to resolve the dispute short of protracted litigation.
The harbor controversy also overlaps with committee governance. Harbor Committee members and other users reported contentious meetings where the committee chair’s process was questioned; selectmen said that contributed to the lack of a clear local recommendation. The dispute later prompted the town to reserve additional funds for legal counsel in the proposed budget.
For now, the town has not adopted a final operational change to the pier. Selectmen said they will rely on attorney advice and harbor-management recommendations before taking further binding action; any land- or funding-related remedies that require town funds would be contingent on town-meeting approval. The timeline for legal proceedings was not specified in the public record; the town manager said estimates for defense costs were being refined with counsel.
Next steps: the selectmen plan to continue coordinating with the Harbor Committee and town counsel; any formal policy or physical changes to the pier are likely to follow legal review and, if required, a town-meeting vote.
