Category Archives: Letters

Letter to the Editor: Neighbors Question if Well Water Supply Sufficient for Proposed 7-Bathroom House on Smith Neck Rd., Old Lyme Zoning to Discuss at Monday Meeting

Posted on by

Editor’s Note: This letter was previously submitted to Paul Orzel, Old Lyme Zoning Commission Chair, and members of the Old Lyme Zoning Commission.

To the Editor:

My husband and I have the good fortune to live on Smith Neck Rd, a beautiful spot many town residents visit throughout the year for recreation and relaxation. Our house is at 39 Smith Neck Rd,, just one property away from the proposed structure(s) planned for 43 Smith Neck Rd.

We are worried that the existing well at 43 Smith Neck will not support the current plans for a house of approximately 10,500 sf (with auxiliary structures) that includes 7 baths, 2 laundries, a pool, and an orchard,  and, further, that this could result in serious water problems for their closest neighbors, including us.

Because of the water issues we have on our property, I question if this complex of buildings can be supported by the well water available on the site. Our well is a 15 foot dug well. I believe the one at 43 is the same. I do not know this for certain, as there is no public record of anyone in town no one has (sic) bothering to look. What I know for certain is that their well is about 100 yards from ours and our nearest neighbor’s well is in between the two! All three are in a direct line quite close to the Back River which runs past all three of these properties. All three are in a 100-year flood zone. Why is FEMA not involved in this approval process?

When we bought our home 10 years ago, we had a water flow analysis done. Here is a direct quote from the notes concluding that report:

“For a shallow well, the system functioned properly, shallow wells do have limitations. After running 300 gal. the well dropped 3’ indicting low yield of 1.5-1.8 gpm under current conditions. After the water run (sic) during inspection and flow test, 3’ feet or 159 gallons of water remained. System is susceptible to seasonal or drought conditions.”

Our well has run dry twice since we bought the house. Our neighbors on either side of us have also experienced significant water issues. These three households and possibly more have the potential to be negatively impacted by the construction project proposed for 43 Smith Neck Rd.

We fear that our water supply is under threat and ask the Zoning Committee to protect our water rights by –

–       Denying approval of this Applicant’s permit as it currently stands.

–       Conducting appropriate hydrology studies through the Town Engineer, Ledge Light, and other appropriate entities to determine the amount of water available at the far end of Smith Neck. 

We ask the Commission to please slow the approval process until more facts have been gathered, so that the owner and his neighbors have full information on the available water supply before construction begins. 

We fear that allowing the permit to go forward in its present form may set a dangerous precedent.  

Anyone with an interest in protecting their well rights is encouraged to attend the Zoning Commission hearing at the Town Hall on January 13 at 6:30 pm. If the building application is approved at this meeting, the structures will go forward as planned.

Sincerely,

Claire and John Griffin,
Old Lyme.                        

Letter to the Editor: Shaun Mastroianni Represents An Independent Voice For Our District

Posted on by
Reply

To the Editor:

I’ve long stayed away from the political arena.  However, the tone of the mailers I am receiving as we near election sets a poor example for our area in terms of the actual issues we as residents face.  Conflating national politics with our local representatives is exactly the kind of problem we as voters can solve as we go the polls.  It’s why I’m supporting Shaun Mastroianni.

In getting to know Shaun, I’ve found him to be pragmatic, open minded, and acting in the best interest of his constituents.  Which makes his opponent’s attacks; portraying Shaun as embedded with Trump and other controversial Republicans, particularly troublesome.  This represents political rhetoric of the laziest sort and it’s misleading and insulting to voters.  

As a registered Independent, disaffected largely by the positions of the GOP in Washington, I’ve hoped to find reasonable lines of commonality with both Democrats and Republicans.  In some ways I have.  It would be hard to argue that we are not best represented in our economic interests by Democrat Joe Courtney’s representation of the second district.  Similarly, Representative Devin Carney, a Republican, continues a bipartisan approach far removed from D.C, and effectively supports environmental, economic, and educational legislation benefiting his district.

Shaun will do the same.  Helping residents in our community afford to live in the same communities they work in, reducing our energy costs for all residents, protecting our senior’s welfare and expanding access to all for preventive care.  Shaun’s approach to strengthening our schools across all towns in the district is particularly important.  It’s a truly pragmatic approach that brings mutual benefits to teachers and students alike by increasing access to STEM and vocational training, in addition to allowing parents a continued strong voice in the education of their children.

By contrast, short of supporting federal legislation that is not threatened reasonably by either party in Connecticut, I can’t understand what Martha stands for.  A quick comparison of both campaign’s websites should be encouraged.  Martha’s cites many prior accomplishments, but little in the way of what her next term will bring.  Shaun’s has a tab with his positions on the issues – none of which cite further restriction of women’s bodily autonomy, direct or inferred support of former President Trump, or any of the claims made by Marx.

As an Independent, voting for Shaun is a vote for the issues that truly impact our towns – not a referendum on the national election.  Any insinuation otherwise is to discredit the strong, educated, and hard-working voters of our district.  We can and should expect better of our representation – especially from an incumbent.  It’s one of the many reasons to support Shaun.

Sincerely,

Alexander Strekel,
Old Lyme.

Letter to the Editor: This Country ‘Will Never Be a Garbage Can’

Posted on by

To the Editor:

I do not live in a garbage can!

Yesterday, I almost reconsidered when my second Harris/Walz sign was stolen.

But where I live bears no resemblance to a “garbage can.” In my lifetime, I have driven cross-country at least a dozen times. Our country is not a garbage can. Yes, there are some terrible neighborhoods. In my experience, many of the ugly spots are owned by very rich people who live in the safety of the suburbs. They rent to very poor people at inflated prices. The owners seldom maintain their rental properties, angering neighbors and festering the idea that their renters (aka poor people) are lazy, menacing slobs. Rat-infested streets breed depression and violence and they may be the “garbage cans” Mr. Trump speaks of. He seems to want to scare people into thinking we have—what he termed, as President—a “s***hole country.” 

I am sorry. Our country is beautiful. It is upsetting that a person who wants to lead us thinks that our country is a garbage can. He believes immigrants are ruining it. (My immigrants arrived in 1630). Yesterday, I learned that his pal, Elon Musk, was an illegal immigrant when he came here, and he worked illegally taking away jobs from Americans. I also learned that Mr. Musk lied to obtain citizenship. Mr. Trump hasn’t said a word about this, nor has he indicated Mr. Musk will be deported like all the other migrants he calls “animals.”

No local members of his party ever speak up. They didn’t after the insurrection. They never seem to separate themselves from his lies or false claims so I guess they agree with him. In my opinion, we never would have become a country, nor could we survive today without immigrants. And we will never be a garbage can.

Sincerely,

Charlotte Scot,
Old Lyme.

Letter to the Editor: Stealing Political Signs is a Criminal Act, Infringement on Free Speech

Posted on by
3

To the Editor:

As a follow up to Kim Thompson’s letter dated September 17, I would like to review a few things.

Signs continue to be stolen from private property.

Here you have theft, as if someone stole your patio furniture.

You have trespassing.

You have infringement on free speech.

This is not mischief; they are criminal acts.

Maybe the thieves feel they are above the law, just like the felonious Republican candidate for President.

Sincerely,

Betsy Groth,
Old Lyme.

Letter to the Editor: On the Issue of Political Signs

Posted on by

To the Editor:

It’s election season and love them or hate them, there are about to be signs supporting candidates all over town. The Old Lyme Democratic Town Committee will unwaveringly support the right of all community members to exercise their First Amendment Right to Freedom of Speech and will stand up to attempts by any private citizen or governing body to trample that freedom.

On Monday, September 9th, an individual took it upon himself to steal a ‘Harris for President’ sign from private property, a video of the individual taking the sign has been submitted to local authorities. On a basic level, signs cost money and belong to the person who has chosen to display them in support of their candidate(s). But more importantly, signs represent our freedom to speak freely and to exercise that freedom in support of our Democracy.

Earlier on September 9th, The [Old Lyme] Historic District Commission (HDC) voted on “Signage Guidelines” which seek to limit the presence of “wire stick signs”, among other types of temporary signage, within the historic district. The discussions by the HDC in the months leading up to this decision focused specifically on limiting the presence of political signage within the HD [Historic District] based on a self-serving “tradition” that only those who don’t want signs ever ascribed to in the first place. Even the Old Lyme Historical Society pointed out that Lyme Street was displaying political signs as early as 1900. Political free speech is essential for our democracy and is one of the most protected forms of speech, so in addition to limiting the constitutional freedoms of residents of the historic district, this opens the town up to litigation when these new guidelines are challenged. 

We urge the residents of Old Lyme to remember that our right to express political support—whether through conversation, signs, or other means—is fundamental to the health of our democracy. Silencing any voice, whether through theft, restrictive guidelines, or other forms of suppression, undermines the very freedoms our country was built upon. The Old Lyme Democratic Town Committee stands firm in its commitment to defend these rights and to foster an inclusive community where every individual’s voice can be heard and respected.

Sincerely, 

Kim Thompson,
Old Lyme.

Editor’s Note: The author is the Old Lyme Democratic Town Committee Chairwoman.