The Proposed Final Decision relies entirely on the views expressed by interested parties; staff member Ms. Gradante whose decision is being challenged, and the applicant's agent, Gary Sharpe.
The only evidence adduced contrary to the views expressed by the dozens of citizens referenced above came from the staff member who approved the project, Susan Gradante, and the applicant's agent Gary Sharpe. No other witnesses were introduced by either staff or by the applicants. (See Chart A, above). No letters of support were received from members of the general public. (See Chart B, above).
It is elemental that a person’s interest in the outcome of a case may effect their credibility. See Sec 52-145. (b) (“A person's interest in the outcome of the action or his conviction of crime may be shown for the purpose of affecting his credibility); See also, State v. Hanks, 39 Conn. App. 333, 350 (1995).
Mr. Sharpe and Ms. Gradante both have an interest in the outcome of the case. By Mr. Sharpe’s own admission, it was his paid role as the applicants’ agent to secure approval for the proposed dock. (Sharpe, 2/28/02 or 3/5/02) His livelihood is clearly dependent upon his success in that regard.
Similarly, Ms. Gradante has an obvious interest in vindicating her approval of an application that has been the subject of strident and very public debate. Indeed, it is obvious from her testimony that she reached her opinions prior the public hearings and that the extensive citizen input played no significant role in her analysis. (Gradante, 2/28/02, 3/5/02).
Even if we are to take the testimony of both Mr. Sharpe and Ms. Gradante at face value, the proposed final decision is fatally defective because there is no explanation whatsoever as to why their views are entitled to greater weight than those of the dozens of citizens who represent hundreds of years of experience actually paddling and visiting the area in question. This is particularly true on the key issues of fact concerning small craft navigation and aesthetics on which Mr. Sharpe and Ms. Gradante clearly have no superior basis for their opinions than the citizens.
The failure of the proposed final decision to provide any analysis of why the testimony of Mr. Sharpe and Ms. Gradante should be preferred is a fatal flaw. It makes the decision indefensible, and leads to the inevitable conclusion that the decision is arbitrary, unreasonable, and unworthy of the Commissioner’s signature.

2. The Proposed Final Decision misstates the law on riparian rights in its reference to the right to "wharf out" into "deep" waters.
There is no right to wharf out to "deep" waters as stated in the decision at page 2. The right is at best a limited right to wharf out to "navigable" waters. This distinction is critical in the instant case because the overwhelming evidence was that the proposed location was objectionable precisely because it was an unsafe, and therefore unreasonable, intrusion into the "navigable" waters of paddlecraft and other small boaters who frequent the area. Nowhere in the law is there an unqualified right to "wharf out" in order to accommodate a 24-foot Sea Ray as is desired by the applicant.
Our Supreme Court made this distinction clear In Port Clinton Associates v. Board of Selectmen, 217 Conn. 588, fn. 13 (1991) when it stated:
“ The right to wharf out derives from the right of access to ‘navigable’ or ‘deep’ water. 1 H. P. Farnham, Water and Water Rights 62. For that reason, ‘as soon as the point of navigability is reached, the purpose of the pier is fulfilled, and the right to construct it ceases at that point. Illinois Central Railroad Company v. Illinois, 146 U.S. 387, 13 S.Ct. 110, 36 L.Ed. 1018 [1892].’ Id., 111, p. 522; accord Lane v. Harbor Commissioners, 70 Conn. 685, 40 A. 1058 (1898). “(Emphasis added).
The point of navigability in the instant case is clear. Paddlecraft, a common form of transportation in this part of the river, must navigate the shallows where the proposed dock would be built in order to remain safe. (See citizens’ evidence summarized in Charts A and B, also, Intervenor Public Trust’s Brief and Reply Brief). Under Port Clinton, “as soon as the point of navigability is reached, the purpose of the pier is fulfilled, and the right to construct it ceases at that point.” Id. The powerboat dock proposed by the Applicants exceeds the point of navigability by paddle and other small craft that frequent the area and violates their rights to navigate the area safely.

*Applicants attempt to address this oversight by asserting that the intervenors “overlook Gary Sharpe’s twenty five years of experience designing docks to meet DEP criteria and Susan Gradante’s experience reviewing over 800 dock applications to determine if the statutory criteria are met.” (Applicant’s Reply Brief, at 8). Yet both Mr. Sharpe and Ms. Gradante CONCEDED at the hearing that they had no special expertise or training in assessing the visual impact of a project. (Sharpe and Gradante, 2/28/02 or 3/5/02) Indeed, Ms. Gradante made it clear that such considerations were rare, usually occurring only when complaints are made by adjacent riparian landowners. (Gradante, 2/28/02 or 3/5/02) Thus, any assertion that their opinions should be entitled to greater weight than those of the public by virtue of their expertise is contrary to their sworn testimony at the hearing.