Tantummaheag Agreement ‘Flouts Public Opinion and Interests’

To the Citizens of Old Lyme:

If you are not aware of the recent proposal by the Old Lyme Board of Selectman (BOS) to execute a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with private property owners that substantially limits public access to Tantummaheag Landing, you really need to know the facts.

Second Selectman, Jim Lampos, has negotiated this MOU with the property owners of 12 and 19 Tantummaheag Road.  Those property owners have claimed for over three (3) years that the landing is not a public road.  The Town of Old Lyme, based on sound legal advice received by the prior administration, continued to maintain that this landing is a public roadway with associated public access rights.

Some historical perspective and factual information which should shape an understanding of this situation are set out below:

1. The property owners at the center of this dispute previously planted shrubs, etc. blocking public access at the landing that was used for nearly 300 years.  The previous BOS Administration wisely had those plantings moved.  The landscape has again been altered by the adjacent land owners.
2. This landing has been used by the public for water access since the 1700s.
3. The previous landowners at 12 Tantummaheag Road around 2010 attempted to block public access to the landing more than once.  The Town BOS at that time stood strong and prohibited those illegal actions.  Those same property owners later proposed a land swap with the Town.  The Town again, prudently, said no.  Widespread public outrage against limiting public access was heard at a public meeting at that time.
4. The proposed MOU by the current majority of the BOS claims the BOS is acting in this disagreement as “the traffic authority for the Town.”  One is therefore compelled to ask:  If the BOS is the traffic authority for the Town, which is true, then doesn’t this demonstrate that the landing is a Town road?  Otherwise, the BOS would have no jurisdiction on this issue.  Therefore, what purpose is served by granting special dispensation to private property owners with blatant disregard for the public’s rightful and unencumbered access to the landing? There is no public benefit in this agreement.
5. Many town residents have used and continue to use this landing for access to the Connecticut River.  Public water access is very limited for Town residents.  Why place restrictions on that access that has been available for so long?  The MOU would restrict access to only pedestrians.  No vehicular traffic except emergency vehicles would be allowed.  Parking would be limited to Town land on the top of the landing outside the stone gates.  So any resident wishing to launch a kayak or a canoe will have to physically carry or wheel their vessel down to the landing.  What is more, this agreement would limit access to the landing from 8:00 a.m. until sunset.  Why?  So a person wo wants to launch a kayak early in the morning cannot do so.  This is not in the interest of the public.  It is a special concession to private property owners who undoubtedly knew this was a Town road when they purchased the property.
6. The agreement continues by requiring that “the Framptons erect” a stone pillar to be inscribed vertically with the number 12 and the words Tantummaheag Landing on it.  This will signal all new and uniformed residents that this is a private property address.  So public access will be dissuaded to undergird the unsubstantiated claims of the adjacent property owners in the future. This will serve to discourage public use and access.
7. The MOU goes on to establish a one-year term from date of signatures.  It states that this agreement: “in no way impacts the rights of either party, etc.”  It should be recognized that MOUs typically signal the willingness of parties to move forward with a contract. This agreement would significantly impact the rights of the public to access to the water. The party left out in this agreement is the public. Public beware!

   Also, MOUs are not normally used to favor one party or the other.  In this instance, that is precisely the outcome.  The public loses ease of access with time limits.  The property owners are granted favorable terms.  The pedestrian- access -only term makes use of a landing for water access at best, very difficult.  Public access is therefore discouraged.  Lack of usage by the public will become engrafted into a future legal resolution to this dispute.  In short, this MOU sets a very bad precedent for the future of public water access at this landing.

8. To add insult to injury, the MOU sets out in term No. 7: “Upon execution of this agreement, a good faith effort will be made to find an impartial, mutually-agreed upon mediator from the…