Groton — In the early 1900s, the State of Connecticut purchased a small piece of land along the Mystic River in Noank as a site for a lobster hatchery.

The nearby roadway, Riverview Avenue, had not been built at the time, but in purchasing the land, the state was given an unspecified right-of-way to a road, according to Groton Public Works Director Greg Hanover.

A few years after the Hurricane of 1938 wiped out the hatchery, the state, through a legislative act, sold the property to the town, he said.

The land was never surveyed, so the town never knew exactly how much it owned, Hanover said. A few years ago, a new Noank property owner conducted a survey and found that a parking area — long used as parking by the public to access the waterfront and to go fishing — is privately owned, said Hanover.

The town did its own survey and title search and also found that while the town owns 1,731 square feet of rocky waterfront land, it does not own the 1,114-square-foot parking area along Riverview Avenue. There is a reference to an easement that provides access on the parking area property, but it is not defined, Town Manager John Burt said.

Several months ago, the property owners installed boulders, so people have not been able to park in the parking area, said Burt, and the town started to get a lot of calls from people wanting access.

After negotiating with the property owner and coming up with a potential property swap, the town is now at a crossroads for how to proceed.

Under the potential land swap, the property owners, Skip Jordan and Marianne Urbanski, would give the parking area with frontage on Riverview Avenue, called "Parcel D," to the town. The town would then give them two coastal parcels — the 25 square-foot "Parcel A" and the 652 square-foot "Parcel C" — while retaining 1,054 square feet of coastal land ("Parcel B") in the middle of the two parcels. Burt said this would be a net increase of 437 square feet to the town.

The potential swap also calls for changing the town’s existing riparian, or watercourse boundary lines to cover a smaller area, which would allow the private owner more flexibility, Burt said.

Another option would be for the town to take no action, but to clearly mark where the public access is, Burt said. A third possibility would be to pursue legal options, since the area historically had been used by the public, Burt said.

More than 20 people spoke during a public hearing last week for the town to receive initial feedback on the proposal. Many spoke about how people, including from out of town, flock to the small area to enjoy the waterfront and to fish.

Speakers in opposition said the potential land swap would decrease public coastal access, which is already limited in town, while those in favor said the parking area was important for public access and the two land parcels the town would give up were not practical to use. Between emails sent to the town and speakers at the meeting, the town has received more comments in opposition to the potential land swap, Burt said. 

Attorney Bill Sweeney, who represents the property owners, said the town’s property along the river is landlocked and does not have frontage along Riverview Avenue, and the access way to it has never been properly defined over the last 80 to 90 years.

“My clients do not want to restrict public access to the water or to the town land, but we are insistent that we need to formalize that access and the parking that’s needed to support it,” said Sweeney, adding that the parking area would provide space for up to four vehicles and allow for safe and convenient access for the public to the rocky shore.

He said the land the property owners received in exchange would not be a building lot and does not meet zoning requirements and would be unusable for anything except perhaps a dock.

Jordan said the proposal is a fair and equitable solution and prevents the potential for further litigation.

Noank resident Zell Steever spoke in opposition to the land swap, which he said would limit the public’s coastal access by reducing publicly owned waterfront lands. He said coastal access is already very limited, and small public coastal access areas function like "public pocket parks."

"These coastal access lands are often places you can walk to; destinations providing unique views; small informal meeting places; fishing spots; or just open spaces for the public to enjoy," he wrote in a letter to the town. "It is clear that if this property is transferred out of the public domain, it will be lost and unavailable for public access in the future."

He instead called for clearly marking the town-owned property and placing signs showing it is a coastal access point and marking where the public right-of-way is.

Elisabeth Pendery also called for clearly marking the areas.

“Coastal access is very limited in our community,” said Pendery. “Preserving and protecting these areas must be a priority of the town. I speak for our present generation and generations to come. We can’t really make plans today for tomorrow, but who knows what opportunities will present themselves for the enjoyment of our coastal waterways. We must protect as much coastal waterway as we can. Parking in my mind is not a priority.”

Andrew Giblin, who grew up near the property, said public access means the whole public, and that means people have to be able to get there and access it — which really means parking. Without parking, it’s still public access that benefits the local community, which is wonderful too, but the site is an inclusive spot where people from different backgrounds and different places can come and enjoy the waterfront.

“It would be sad, it would be kind of tragic if that access to the general public went away,” he added. “I think that is true public access. You can measure quality and quantity. Sure, the quantity is the long stretch of beach but the quality is how many people can access it and when, and I think that's something that really should be considered."

But Giblin asked the town to look at the proposed riparian lines because he said there could be unintended consequences if accepted.

When a resident asked, during an informational meeting prior to the hearing, if there would be restrictions on the town giving away the two parcels since the state gave the land to the town for public use, Eric Callahan, the town’s attorney, said he would look at the deed, but there is an option to ask the Attorney General for allowance to use the parking area to fulfill the public purpose.

The new Town Council, once in place, is expected to take up deciding the Noank land issue, and the town also will do more research on the locations of the existing riparian lines, Burt said.

k.drelich@theday.com