Old Lyme Selectmen Seek Feedback on Lieutenant River Walking Bridge
The Board of Selectmen wants to hear from residents on the future of a proposal for a pedestrian bridge and fishing pier.
OLD LYME, CT – The Old Lyme Board of Selectmen is inviting residents to share their views on the future of a proposed pedestrian bridge over the Lieutenant River.
The bridge concept, originally developed by the now‑disbanded Halls Road Improvements Committee and funded with federal and state design dollars, expanded to include a state‑required fishing pier and parking area after the Connecticut Department of Energy and Environmental Protection deeded property to the town.
Some residents who spoke during the recent selectmen’s meeting asked officials not to abandon the project. First Selectwoman Martha Shoemaker in her weekly newsletter said selectmen are interested in hearing more community opinions before making a decision.
Shoemaker emphasized the bridge proposal is separate from the ongoing Halls Road sidewalks project.
Residents may contact the Board of Selectmen to share their thoughts.
Comments (1)
Comments are closed.
Related Articles
Old Lyme Beach Sewer Project Could Break Ground by Summer
Construction could begin in June or July as three private beach associations move forward. Questions remain over how the town will react to state pressure on pollution issues.
UPDATED: Controlled Burn Planned Friday at Nehantic State Forest in Lyme Postponed
The state Department of Energy and Environmental Protection said the goal of the controlled burn is to restore the oak savanna habitat, which depends on fire to persist.
Old Lyme’s Arts Scene Recognized with $68,000 in State Support
The grants for four Old Lyme arts organizations were awarded as part of a $946,398 investment in cultural groups statewide.
Re-creating a bridge from Old Lymes history is a worthy “want”. In my opinion this town has many more “needs” than wants. Having lived here, and paid taxes here, for 30+ yrs this town has no problem spending money on “wishes” and
virtually nothing on “needs”. Sad governance.