Tantummaheag: What Happened? Where Do We Go From Here?

OLD LYME—At the March 29 Special Meeting in the Old Lyme Town Hall, the Old Lyme (OL) Board of Selectmen gave the public an opportunity to comment on the proposed Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) Draft between the Town of Old Lyme and the owners of 12 and 19 Tantummaheag Rd., George Frampton and Carla Darista Frampton.

A press release issued April 15, by the Old Lyme First Selectman’s Office described the MOU as an attempt, “to move toward a more final resolution of the current dispute,” and noted that, “The BOS and the Framptons have entered into an interim agreement for the next year regarding use of the so-called Landing.” Read this article titled, “Introduction of Draft ‘Memo of Understanding’ by Town of Old Lyme, Owners Moves Tantummaheag Landing Dispute Into ‘Less-Divisive Environment” by Olwen Logan and published April 21 on LymeLine.com for more details of the MOU, including both its full text, and the background to its creation.

More than 80 people attended the meeting and the majority of those who commented spoke against the proposal while a smaller number spoke in support.

Watch a video of the meeting at this link.

The meeting ended with Selectwoman Jude Read (R) calling for a vote on whether to approve the MOU, which Selectman Jim Lampos (D) seconded.

Read then voted against the motion and Lampos, who had been the prime negotiator of the agreement with the Framptons, supported it. It was left to First Selectwoman Martha Shoemaker (D) to break the tie.

Contrary to some expectations, since both Shoemaker and Lampos are Democrats and appeared to have supported bringing the MOU forward to the meeting, Shoemaker voted against the motion.

Later in the week, we asked Shoemaker via text why she had voted against the motion to approve the MOU on Monday night. She responded via email saying, “As I stated on Monday evening, I thought there were two strong components of the MOU draft. The one-year time term with the option to renew and the understanding that neither side was ceding any future rights or claims were positive.”

She added, “I believe the other concessions did not provide additional benefits to the town,” concluding, “I am also concerned that this could set precedent for future land disputes.”

We also asked George Frampton for his reaction to the meeting. He replied via email, “It is inexplicable to us that the Selectmen would vote against a common sense proposal to move toward a resolution of our dispute with the Town, after having (1) charged one of the board’s own members [Selectman Jim Lampos] (an expert in local historical archival documents) to investigate the true facts and make recommendations, then (2) authorizing him to work with the Town lawyer and us on that solution to negotiate a temporary “cooling off” period and full pedestrian access [along with] discussions the Town has never before allowed to us, while not giving up a single iota of town rights or claims while protecting our safety and security,  and finally (3) approving bringing the MOU forward [to the Town.]”

He noted, “Instead of moving toward resolution, the Board has seems to have gone backwards three years.”

We asked both Shoemaker and Frampton where the Tantummaheag issue goes from here. On this, there seems to be some consensus.

Frampton said, “We hope the Board will reconsider this own-goal error and reconstruct a way to work together with us.”

Shoemaker responded, “We will be organizing a small group of town residents to further work on this issue. Multiple people have already communicated that they would be willing to serve on this committee.  Mr. Frampton indicated to me after the meeting that he would be willing to work with me as well.”

She concluded, “I will provide more information on this next week.”