It was disappointing, but not surprising, to see the failure of the latest effort to amend local regulations to allow public access to the New London Harbor Lighthouse. The New London Maritime Society, caretakers of the lighthouse, had sought a modification of zoning regulations. If approved, it would have set up a special permit process for allowing visitors to tour historic properties in the city’s residential neighborhoods, including the Harbor Lighthouse.

After an extensive public hearing, a majority of Planning and Zoning Commission members concluded the proposed regulations were overly broad and would be difficult to enforce. The commission rejected the proposal by a 5-2 vote Thursday.

The decision followed contentious proceedings.

In a Dec. 4 editorial, we took the position that the best hope for a solution to this unfortunate matter would be found in a meeting of the minds. The relationship between the Maritime Society and the adjoining neighbors to the lighthouse is not good. However, if all parties had been able to agree on a regulatory approach they felt adequately protected their respective interests, and more carefully aligned with the city’s plan of conservation and development, the process may have well reached a successful conclusion.

Unfortunately, the parties did not agree on a path forward, with both sides pointing to the unreasonableness of the other.

What remains clear is that it is in the public’s interest to see the lighthouse reopened to visitors. Reasonable people should be able to find some way to make that happen.

The angry rhetoric of NLMS President George A. Sprecace, contained in a news release issued after the vote, is not helpful. He vowed the maritime society “will challenge the poor and lazy implementation of zoning regulations. We will appeal on procedural grounds the shameful and precipitate action of the Zoning Board of Appeals.”

In seeming reference to neighbors opposed to the zoning change, Sprecace criticized, “Individuals motivated only by self-interest and arrogant ignorance.”

The NLMS president said his nonprofit group is readying a legal fight in the courts and a political fight in the city — seeking to amend the charter to convert the P&Z Commission from an appointed commission to an elected one. What would be the society’s desired platform for the election? Perhaps a commitment to support any zone change filed by the lighthouse group.

None of this will get visitors back to the lighthouse anytime soon.

We remain miffed why the NLMS, after receiving a cease-and-desist order that its existing visitor operations violated zoning regulations, did not pursue what appeared the best vehicle for a compromise, one suggested by the Zoning Board of Appeals: an application under existing regulations for a special permit to operate a museum in a residential zone.

The society contends the lighthouse is not a museum. In fact, it remains a living museum. Its artifacts tell its story. This is why NLMS wants it open to public visits.

More problematic for the NLMS is that the land around the lighthouse on Pequot Avenue is not large enough to meet the museum regulations. It would require a variance. While these can be legally tricky, the society has a legitimate hardship — the perquisite for a variance — because the property footprint was fixed when it took possession from the federal government with the mandate to make it publicly accessible.

The society should take a second look at this option. Unfortunately, given the degree of acrimony with the neighbors, having all sides unite over that path forward now appears a long shot.

What would be unreasonable is if adjoining property owners reject any avenue that would allow small tour groups, at appropriate times and with practical limitations, to visit the lighthouse. The Harbor Lighthouse is a treasure all should be able to share, not a prize only for those who live nearby to enjoy.

Donald and Bonita Waesche, who own the home at 800 Pequot Ave. that abuts the lighthouse, are pursuing a federal lawsuit that disputes the property line and alleges unpermitted construction of a walkway and retaining wall. In a March 9 letter to the judge, the Waesches broke off negotiations with the NLMS, stating, “Further mediation would be fruitless.”

Meanwhile, Sprecace said his group will make the case the federal dictate to make the lighthouse accessible to the public pre-empts local zoning laws, the laws the society just asked to be changed. That’s hardly consistent.

It is a sad situation. A prolonged legal and political fight will not make it any happier.