In its extensive, detailed 2004 application to obtain the historic New London Harbor Light, under terms of the National Historic Lighthouse Preservation Act of 2000, the New London Maritime Society made a lot of promises to the federal government.

In the application, which was supported with letters of recommendations by a number of prominent local institutions, the society said it planned to seek zoning approvals to regularly open the lighthouse, located on a small parcel in a residential zone, as a museum and to seek city approval to do that.

"When the light is acquired by the society, the use will be reclassified as lighthouse/museum. Site plan approval review by the Planning and Zoning Commission will be required and special permit procedures may be followed," the society told the federal government, adding that preliminary discussions about zone changes with the city's Office of Development and Planning had taken place.

The society also said in its application that it would take care to respect the neighbors, given the residential zoning for the neighborhood, and would plant landscaping buffers to help protect the neighbors from the impact of lighthouse visitors.

For access to the lighthouse, the society said it would build a new walkway on the lighthouse property, a walkway that would direct pedestrian traffic away from the neighbors and property borders.

It took several more years of negotiations before the lighthouse was finally conveyed to the society, by the Department of Interior. Federal officials, in the correspondence of the negotiations, continued to express concern that zoning problems be resolved and that the neighbors in the residential zone be consulted and respected.

The reality of the way the society, now under different leadership, has opened the lighthouse to the public could not be more different than what was promised.

Indeed, rather than directing visitors away from the neighbors, the society has, on one side, entered into a nasty boundary dispute that has gone to federal court. The society started to build an entrance walkway hugging the disputed property line, directly next to the neighbor's swimming pool.

That neighbor, Donald Randolph Waesche, is named for his great uncle, Coast Guard Adm. Russell Randolph Waesche, who was Coast Guard commandant at the time the service took over care of the nation's lighthouses from the Lighthouse Service. Waesche Hall, the library and museum at the Coast Guard Academy, is named for him.

On the other side, the society has trespassed on property it does not own or have deeded easements to, claiming a right of way by adverse possession. At times, it has literally lined visitors waiting to climb the lighthouse along the side of the neighbor's house, where they could peer in the windows.

The neighbors, whose family has owned the lighthouse keeper's house, once directly connected to the lighthouse, for six generations, since 1928, say the path used by the society was not regularly used by the keepers or Coast Guard. The family has always provided complete access to the Coast Guard across all itsproperty, they say, and the original keepers entered directly from the house.

Before the fight with that neighbor escalated to a lawsuit filed by the society, the neighbor said society President George Sprecace turned up one day and, in front of her, yanked out the small bushes she had planted to discourage the trespassing alongside her house.

Sprecace told me last week he doesn't remember pulling out the bushes.

"We certainly put the things aside," he said. "I don't remember quote unquote pulling out a plant."

The society eventually dropped the lawsuit after the neighbors hired a lawyer and began to defend it in court. I would suggest it was dropped because it was doomed to fail. Sprecace insisted this week it had merit.

In addition to the broken promises about respecting the neighbors, the society never sought zoning permits to use the property as a museum, as pledged in the application.

And last week, the society served notice on the city that it is suing the Zoning Board of Appeals, for a decision upholding a zoning enforcement cease-and-desist order that bars the society from conducting tours.

The legal arguments in this newest lawsuit by the society include the notion that the lighthouse has historically been open to visitors, before zoning was enacted. They submitted an old painting showing a few people strolling on the lighthouse lawn and a postcard of the light with a note from the sender that they had climbed the tower. They also submitted a general U.S. manual for keepers, from the time before the Coast Guard managed lighthouses, that said they should let the public in.

It seems like a thin argument that occasional visits to the lighthouse over the years now exempts the society from zoning, freeing the society to formally escort through the property groups of adults and schoolchildren and tour groups who have been made to donate to see the light.

The light was unmanned and automated before city zoning was created in 1928. The empty keeper's house was sold as surplus in 1928.

The society never obtained building permits for substantial work it did after Hurricane Sandy, with federal grant money. One of the federally funded projects rebuilt the walkway between the light and the keeper's house, leading to the path along the house that was the subject of the now-abandoned lawsuit.

Society Director Susan Tamulevich said their contractors told them permits were not necessary. They did submit a permit for a new wall, after the fact, when the building official demanded it.

Tamulevich, in a lecture about the lighthouse she gave in Fairfield County in May, complained: "We are being threatened by someone with lots of money who thinks they can wear us down."

She said the prominent law firm of Robinson and Cole has "taken us on as a pro bono case."   

The firm's lawyer would not comment on the terms of its representation. Sprecace said it is not pro bono and the legal bills are harming the society's finances.

I asked Sprecace why they don't just avoid the disputes with neighbors and build access to the light down the middle of their own property, as proposed in the application. I also asked why they don't seek zoning approval, since the generous donations to the lighthouse renovation prove widespread community support.

He said other options might be considered, but they will continue to press their claims in court.

It strikes me that the board of the society should consider new leadership, with more respect for the promises it made in seeking the lighthouse in the first place.

It would be a shame if community support for preserving and making available to the public this historic treasure would begin to get lost in all the contentious lawsuits.

This is the opinion of David Collins

d.collins@theday.com

Twitter:@David Collinsct