Temporary agreement reached for Cape Poge gate

Following a dispute over a gate on Chappaquiddick that restricted access to conservation lands, the Trustees of Reservations and a group of Cape Poge property owners have reached a temporary agreement. 

Under the stipulation issued by Massachusetts Land Court on May 29, the gate — a single chain with a padlock connected to two wooden posts — can stay up, but the property owners are required to provide to the Trustees the lock combination, and any changes to the combination. The Trustees will also be required to lock the gate when using the trail, a portion of which crosses private land on Shear Pin Lane, and let the owners know who knows the combination. 

The agreement allows the Trustees to continue to conduct its conservation work — which includes monitoring endangered shore species. Trustees staff will also have more limitations than before, such as being allowed access only from 8 am to 8 pm, in clearly marked vehicles with the nonprofit’s insignia, and needing to sign into a “trail log.” 

Controversy over the gate sparked last month after the Trustees sued the property owners, saying it restricted its ability to monitor conservation lands to help protect endangered species. The property owners contested the claims in the suit, and argued the gate was not nearly as obstructive as described by the conservation organization. They also said the gate was installed following incidents of trespassing and property damage. 

Mary Detloff, Trustees spokesperson, declined to comment on the stipulation, and the nonprofit’s attorneys from Boston law firm Beveridge & Diamond, PC, were not immediately available for comment. 

Luke Legere, who represented the property owners, said his clients were “pleased with the mutual agreement endorsed by the Land Court, and the agreement speaks for itself.” 

“We have no further comment at this time,” Legere said. 

Martha’s Vineyard Beachgoers Access Group, a local beach access advocacy group, celebrated that the Trustees could continue its conservation efforts, but were displeased that it was being done under what they saw as the property owners’ rules. 

“This is a temporary fix — not a solution,” Peter Sliwkowski, president of the group, said in a statement. “It lets conservation work move forward, which is good. But it comes at a cost: The gate stays locked, the Trustees operate under strict landowner-imposed conditions, and the public is being presented with a narrative of ownership and control that hasn’t been legally resolved.”