Tension around public access to Chappaquiddick beaches has long been swirling, but it has intensified with a public access advocacy group highlighting a series of infractions on some private properties. The group sees these instances as Edgartown selectively enforcing its bylaws on the Island, a claim that’s received pushback from town officials and property owners.
Members of Martha’s Vineyard Beachgoers Access Group, the Island advocacy group, and its allies have submitted their own findings on 15 projects on Cape Poge (also spelled “Cape Pogue”) properties owned by private landowners they say are potentially breaking local bylaws. Meanwhile, they say that projects that provide the public with access to the remote island have received stricter scrutiny.
Peter Sliwkowski, president of the M.V. Beachgoers Access Group and a full-time resident of Chappaquiddick, said his organization found changes to the Cape Poge landscape — including the clearing of vegetation and the construction of structures like solar panels, shacks, and an observation deck — around some private properties, through an “extensive analysis” using tools such as satellite imagery, available on Google Earth, which can show how a location has looked over the years. Sliwkowski said the group has been flagging to town officials actions they believe did not undergo proper permitting since last year.
Sliwkowsi and others are frustrated, because they say that Edgartown officials have been slow to respond to their complaints; and they expressed concern there has been a double standard at play over enforcement on Cape Poge favoring private landowners on the Island. Sliwkowski said delays allow the landowners to “enjoy their private sanctuary,” while the public’s historic access to Chappaquiddick beaches has become restricted.
“I just believe this is not fair, and I don’t understand why the town doesn’t take a more aggressive position on what’s going on out there,” Sliwkowski said, adding his group wants the Edgartown officials to be “part of the solution.” He also questioned how the landowners could claim to be for the protection of Cape Poge when their projects have an environmental impact.
Landowners on Cape Poge have pushed back on the advocates’ claims, saying that they’ve taken steps to address any infractions that were alleged or are under review. They also said that the access group’s actions aren’t helpful to the ultimate goal of better access.
“The properties referenced in Mr. Sliwkowski’s one-sided crusade against certain Cape Poge property owners have either already initiated the appropriate regulatory process, are under litigation, or were permitted decades ago, and are undergoing normal updates,” the joint statement reads. “In our opinion, the false narrative and vitriol Mr. Slikowski continues to foster against Cape Poge property owners is unproductive, and does nothing to move the needle toward meaningful solutions for responsible beach access.
“We are grateful to the town for its diligence and equitable resolution of these matters, and for their support for protection of the Cape Poge wildlife and ecosystem.”
The beach access group alleged there was a lack of proper permitting for various structures and activities on Cape Poge private properties, including a shed on 9 Shear Pin Lane, an observation deck built at 55 Lighthouse Road, a floating dock at 20 Road to the Gut — advocates say the owner has not renewed its permit since 1990 — and solar arrays at several properties.
The town has taken action to get homeowners in compliance with bylaws for some of the items, including the observation deck. The town, for its part, also rejected claims that it is showing any favor. In a joint statement, the Edgartown conservation commission and planning board said owners of some flagged properties had already initiated the “appropriate regulatory process,” including the Shear Pin Lane shed.
There are also several cases in which the “reported activities fall outside the statute of limitations, or are classified as preexisting nonconforming, particularly with respect to solar installations subject to the 2019 solar zoning law.” The town also notes some flagged properties had valid permitting, like a revetment at 25 Shear Pin Lane that underwent environmental permitting nearly 20 years ago.
Still, town officials acknowledged there were multiple instances in which the orders of conditions had “lapsed” among the infractions flagged by the access group, like for the annual mowing and floating dock at 20 Road to the Gut; since being flagged, the property owners have been working to obtain updated permitting. The town has also been working with the homeowners of 55 Lighthouse Road and 63 Lighthouse Road, where decks were improperly built.
“Many of these, and other infractions around town, had already been noted by staff, and efforts have been ongoing to work with the property owners to address the concerns of the conservation commission,” the statement reads in part.
Town officials also said that they “take all complaints seriously,” but highlighted the large amount of work they need to handle across the town, not just Cape Poge. According to the joint statement, the conservation commission manages “upwards” of 20 public hearings each month “while simultaneously conducting enforcement operations and other activities.” The planning board deals with a “similar volume of applicants,” and deals with a “townwide scope,” including the Cape Pogue District of Critical Planning Concern.
“Given the volume and complexity of matters before the conservation commission, enforcement actions are pursued based on clearly defined priorities — including urgency, environmental harm, and statutory deadlines,” the statement reads. “The conservation commission does not have the capacity to investigate every allegation immediately, nor can it divert resources from time-sensitive matters.
“While the town values the contributions of advocacy groups, including MVBAG, it is important to note that our regulatory boards are guided by facts, applicable laws, and environmental considerations,” the statement reads. “They do not function as a venue for advancing disputes between parties.”
But beach access advocates were dissatisfied with the town letting Cape Poge property owners get what they called “after-the-fact” permitting, especially since the area is state-designated priority habitat.
Chris Kennedy, a former Trustees superintendent on the Island, and a consultant for Martha’s Vineyard Beachgoers Access Group, highlighted that even if the observation deck on Lighthouse Lane will ultimately be removed if the town decides to take that action, they’re “smack-dab in the middle” of the habitat of northern harriers, a raptor threatened in Massachusetts. He said it could take years before the birds, and other species, become comfortable nesting in the specific area again.
“Potentially, it’s an environmental train wreck on many different levels,” Kennedy said of what he called a “lack of oversight” on Cape Poge. He also said it would be beneficial to provide community members and experts more of an opportunity to say how Cape Poge should be protected, through processes like public hearings.
The access group has been particularly frustrated over the permitting process for the stairs at Wasque Reservation, managed by the Trustees of Reservations, being seemingly different compared with two other privately owned sets of stairs on Lighthouse Road. The proceedings have fueled their belief that the town is practicing selective enforcement.
At Wasque Reservation, which is near the Cape Poge Wildlife Reservation, the Trustees own a set of aluminum stairs that are frequently used by older individuals and children to access the beach. Otherwise, people need to take an alternative route that can be difficult for young children and those with mobility issues. Advocates highlighted that the Trustees had to acquire new permitting before being allowed to remove and reinstall its stairs at Wasque, which they have argued took a substantial amount of time. The delay sharply cut down accessibility for most of last summer in the area.
But advocates said two sets of stairs leading to the beach from 55 and 59 Lighthouse Road, both private properties, seemed to have been allowed to operate under similar seasonal installations without undergoing the same process, and advocates say these lack permitting.
“You can’t treat one group, like the Trustees, differently from another, like the Cape Poge landowners,” said Kennedy.
Patrick Paquette, the government affairs officer of the Massachusetts Striped Bass Association, who spoke with The Times in an individual capacity, flagged the private set of stairs last year to the town, and plans to pursue state or federal channels for enforcement if no action is taken.
“It is setting precedent,” Paquette said, worried the Vineyard was headed toward increased privatization of beaches exclusively for wealthy individuals.
Kara Shemeth, Edgartown conservation agent, said the “perception of a double standard” was “unfounded,” saying the conservation commission has been consistent for similar situations in other parts of town. Shemeth said at least one set of the privately installed stairs predate the Wetlands Protection Act (WPA) and local bylaws. She also said they may fall under a 1975 order of conditions, in which case they would be permitted. But the case is ongoing.
“I am not a lawyer, and it’s a very complicated situation,” Shemeth said. “We are working with property owners to ensure compliance with the WPA and local bylaws.”
She noted that beach access advocates had been “invited multiple times” to attend commission meetings related to the Wasque stairs, but “to date, none have opted to attend to discuss these matters.” Local advocates have attended other meetings regarding projects on Chappaquiddick beaches, like the Trustees’ oversand vehicle trails.
Opinions differed among beach access advocates on how they wanted to maintain relations with Edgartown, and equal application of the law. Some, like Sliwkowski and Kennedy, said they still wanted to work with the town, despite disappointment with its conduct. Others, like Paquette, who called for “revolution” with firings and voting out individuals who held the status quo, viewed the situation more like a political battle.
“It’s not black-and-white,” Kennedy said. “But it’s time for this to be addressed.”
As this conflict boils, the questions about access to beaches continue, especially for fishermen. Paquette has fished in the Martha’s Vineyard Striped Bass and Bluefish Derby, the Island’s premier fishing event in the fall, for nearly three decades, and said the beaches available on the Island for fishing have diminished over the years. That sentiment was shared by older Island fishermen who were interviewed for this year’s souvenir Derby booklet. The Wasque stairs, frequently used by older individuals and children to reach the beaches, being unavailable for a large chunk of the summer last year exacerbated this feeling for some people.
“I will not be held as a second-class citizen,” Paquette said. “There’s Cape Poge landowners and then there’s the rest of us.”
Sliwkowski said his group will be continuing to monitor what’s happening on Chappaquiddick to ensure public access to beaches is protected. He pointed out that in July, some private landowners had been spotted enjoying a beach managed by the Trustees of Reservations called North Hole on Cape Poge, with an oversand vehicle when the area was not supposed to have cars. Darci Schofield, the Trustees’ Islands director, confirmed this incident occurred and that steps had been taken to address it.
“We are not finished yet,” Sliwkowski said.
As a former 10 year employee of TTOR, I am appalled by the Cape Poge residents to deny the public access to the beaches. The fishermen are stewards of the property, educating all people about the fragile environment they are enjoying. Residents of Martha’s Vineyard, especially entire families, loved the beaches they visited, mostly on the weekend, and always behaved responsibly. Please, share the beach.
The beaches are by no means closed to public access. The Cape Poge residents are not denying public access to the beaches. That is a complete misnomer. You can still access all the beaches, you just can’t drive to all of them. I love to kayak and have no problem getting anywhere I want to go. MVBAG seems to believe that if you can’t drive somewhere it is closed. There are many ways to experience these beautiful spots that don’t involve a car.
Hi John
To suggest that the Cape Poge beaches are not closed to the public is disingenuous – they are currently closed to public vehicles. Asking the public to kayak to these public beaches with a 3 year old, while egregiously entitled landowners continue to drive limitless vehicles to those same beaches is bonkers. It will never be the solution.
Congratulations regarding your ability to access all the beaches by kayaking. Unfortunately there are many of us who through physical and age limitations as well as not owning a kayak are not able to reach those same beaches. I enjoy fishing all over the island but due to cordoned off areas I am unable to fish my favorite spots. I don’t understand the mindset of a group of people who will do everything no matter the cost to preserve their little piece of paradise! It certainly says a lot about their character and values! It’s not the Chappy way.
Ever tried to walk from Dike Bridge to the Cape Poge light?
Over the years I worked on Cape Poge I had to find and bring back several people who tried and had to call for help. Generally they described their location as “on the beach”.
Not all beachgoers have kayaks and some, especially older folk, do not have the physical strength to handle one.
Hi John
Would you be supportive of the Winnetu Resort claiming exclusive access to South Beach, with the understanding that the public would still be welcome to kayak to South Beach if they really needed to use it? This is absurd, yet this is exactly what these Cape Poge landowners want the public to accept.
Well written article. In response to Ms. Shemeth’s claims that advocates have not attended ConCom meetings. I attended online public hearings during the development of the Orders of Condition & during the permitting of the Wasque stairs. At the end of one of those public hearings the Zoom was left on and the mic was “hot”. Members of Edgartown ComCom referred to me as “annoying” and I wasn’t the only member of the public assigned an insulting nickname by government officials. Edgartown ConCom made it clear on that day they have no interest in informed public input and this is a perfect example easily confirmed. Also, the claims that the illegal (my words) stairs on Cape Pogue are grandfathered in some way are not true. Both sets of private stairs on Cape Pogue are removed in Fall and replaced in Spring (see Google images) and the law says the reinstallation restarts the process. This was part of the reason Edgartown took 80% of a season from the public by preventing TTOR to re-install the updated Wasque stairs that also pre date the WPA and the same laws Edgartown is using to justify allowing unpermitted Cape Pogue stairs to remain. This is an apples to apples comparison. Edgartown should be more like Tisbury and assign daily fines for the latency in permitting. Also, regarding Ms Shemeth’s claim the solar arrays are in compliance, she fails to mention the clearcutting of the protected locations those solar arrays currently stand. Im sure clearcutting in a DCPC has been illegal far longer than those solar arrays have existed.
In the Times article, the Town stated:
“There are also several cases in which the ‘reported activities fall outside the statute of limitations, or are classified as preexisting nonconforming, particularly with respect to solar installations subject to the 2019 solar zoning law.’”
It’s important to be clear: statutes of limitation do not erase the obligation to obtain permits. They only limit how far back certain zoning enforcement actions can be pursued in court.
Wetlands (OOCs): Orders of Conditions expire after three years unless extended. Once expired, they no longer protect the activity or structure. Under the Wetlands Protection Act, there is no statute of limitations — enforcement is always possible, even decades later.
Special Permits (Planning/DCPC): By law, a permit must be exercised within two years or it lapses. M.G.L. c.40A §7 sets six years for unpermitted structures and ten years for unpermitted uses as the outer limits for zoning enforcement. But those limits don’t mean the structures were ever lawfully permitted — they only mean the Town may lose leverage to compel removal.
? The bottom line: Permits are always required. The fact that something falls outside a statute of limitations does not retroactively make it legal.
Kara, the agent from the conservation commission probably needs a raise just for having to deal with this MVBag group. As a long-time summer vacationer on Chappy (who is very interested in conservation) I’ve been following the Cape Pogue situation closely for years now. This group seems to be all over the place. And, according to Kara in the article, they don’t seem to show up at meetings. Really? They are concerned over the environmental impact, yet they want the Trustees to have the ability to pack the beaches with hundreds of cars?! How does that make sense? It doesn’t. Maybe PETA needs to get involved. If we are trying to save plovers (which they only produce .8 plovers a year out there) why not protect the fish from these many so-called disabled fishers? Fish are animals, too. Or, at least I thought they were. Besides all that, I still can’t get over the fact that they don’t understand how private landowners bought the land out there to begin with and nicely donated to the Trustees who in turn destroyed the conservation land. This MVBag leader, Peter could do a better job organizing the thoughts of his group. And, does this Chris Kennedy even live on the Vineyard? He seems to have had changing views over the years which I can’t wrap my head around. I have walked out to Pogue many times. The land is clearly not the same. The lighthouse has had to be moved, houses have had to be moved. Why? Because the land is disappearing. I find it very tacky for the MVBag group trying to drum up more drama out there. As a PR professional I can tell you that acting childish in a grown up world doesn’t work.
Hi Sean
Your failed attempt to discredit Peter and Chris are not welcome by the Island community. This dispute is between a select few (but not all) Cape Poge landowners vs. the public writ large. This is why you see so many “Free Cape Poge” stickers and “Access To All” magnets on Island vehicles. This is why long-standing incumbents were voted out of office in the recent Edgartown elections. The public is speaking clearly, with a unified voice. Any attempt by a select few landowners to convert the public beaches of Cape Poge into a private sanctuary are unacceptable and unseemly. Wealth transfer schemes such as this are nothing but bald-faced land grabs, and will never transpire on this Island.
I am grateful for those taking the time and energy and trying to keep beaches open to the public. The public needs more beach access and not less. I was hoping with the change of selectman this year We might see a change of interest in keeping these beaches accessible to the public.
Don’t want to confuse Sean with facts — since 2021 MVBAG has had representatives at every Conservation Commission hearing regarding Order of Conditions for Chappy Beaches, Norton Point, and Wasque stairs, and every Planning Board session on special permits, most DCPC Advisory Committee meetings, the state MEPA review, and many other meetings….almost too many to list.
We’ve consistently supported the balance of responsible access and active conservation — well-managed OSV use alongside seasonal closures and protections when appropriate. If asking for regulations, laws, and by-laws to be applied fairly, consistently, and objectively is considered ‘childish,’ then so be it.
As for Kara’s invite to a Con Com meeting to discuss our concerns— we’re waiting on the Town’s formal response to our 2024 submission, which we’ve follow-up with detailed follow-up update request. This fall, we’ll be putting our concerns about selective enforcement on the agenda for both the Conservation Commission and Planning Board meetings.
Well researched article! As a long-time surfcaster (once a year) at the Vineyard, I am pleased to see that proper attention is being paid to the issues raised concerning OSV access on Cape Pogue. There has been at least 75 years of OSV access and a group of private landowners are trying to extinguish easements that in some cases their own forebears wrote with the express intent to grant public OSV access. Since then, new agencies (viz. TTOR) have come into existence and new administrative treatment of those valid easements must take place. Apprising the public of the issues is very helpful.
Good point Peter – the public is eternally grateful to the generous folks who donated the Cape Poge property to the Trustees in the 1950s. Thankfully, that donation is legally binding and irrevocable. Sure, the ancestors of these generous benefactors can express concerns and discontent to their neighbors (the Trustees), but they will never reverse the ownership of this property.
Perhaps “progeny”, not “ancestors “?
Was this article written as report of a particular meeting by a town board or of the MVBAG or what? Maybe an opinion piece? What’s going on at MVTimes?
Hi Roger
This article highlights the stunning hypocrisy of a select group of Cape Poge landowners. This cabal of connivers seek to deny public access to public beaches under the pretext of environmental protection, yet they wish to have unlimited vehicle access to those same beaches for themselves and unlimited guests, where they can host these unregulated visitors on unpermitted structures. Apparently, they were hoping nobody would notice their outrageous actions, but they are now facing the appropriate disgust of the Island community.
As an Islander, I can tell you that the only disgusting thing being highlighted by this article is MVBAG. You guys have jumped the shark.
Not very heavy on opinion on this. It’s research journalism at its best. I have followed this issue for nearly 25 years in one form or another and it’s clear that the author of this piece has done some work before publishing it. What is your question or point of view that prompted your comment? Do you think local news should be limited to the ferry schedules?
TTOR is not the same as a private homeowner. There is a reason restaurants need a liquor license to sell you a drink, but a private homeowner can give you a drink for free with no license required. TTOR is a corporate conglomerate. Land Management is supposed to be their JOB. The old Wasque stairs were supposed to be seasonal and taken out every year. TTOR failed to maintain them and they became buried…useless…defunct. New permanent stairs in a different location for public use needed a new permit. Very different from private seasonal stairs since the 1940s.
There is something rotten in Denmark with this MVBAG group –Drones and google earthing families on private property? Gross.
Besides, these “violations” all sound way outside the statute of limitations. What other town resident has had things on their property where Edgartown has gone after the private property owner decades after the fact because some angry bitter person informed on their neighbor? I’d be surprised if it has ever happened. Edgartown is better than this bologna. If Town Boards start going after Cape Pogue residents when it has never happened to anyone else, then perhaps there would be legitimate concern for “Selective Enforcement”.
This article is very misleading. Cape Pogue beaches are not public. No matter how many times it gets called a public beach, it isn’t. The only public beach is Leland. The public have been able to use the beach and have paid handsomely for the privilege lining TTOR’s pockets. The beaches are also not closed. You can access them all sorts of ways. I’m 78 years old I’ve been going out to Cape Pogue for over fifty years and I personally know most of the landowners and I think they are the true stewards of Cape Pogue. I normally go by small sailboat, how everyone always used to get out there. The Cape Pogue landowners, most of whom have been there for more than six decades, are lovely (you might try to get to know them rather than just villainizing them). They do an amazing job of maintaining and keeping it as natural as they can and they have a right to protect their personal property and their personal land same as you and I do.
Hi Judi
Both Leland and Cape Poge beaches are open to the public. Anyone may walk on to both beaches without payment. Unfortunately, there are only 20 public parking spots and these beaches stretch 7 miles, so it is simply not practical to “park and walk on”. In order to access Leland and Cape Poge beaches by vehicle, members of the public pay the owners of the land (Trustees) for a OSV permit, exactly the same as paying the town of Edgartown for access at Norton Point. Neither the Trustees nor the town of Edgartown are “lining their pockets” with these permit sales. The Trustees is a non-profit and are encouraged to generate revenue, which is legally required to be reinvested into their mission.
Separately, I fail to see how a string of illegal construction projects in a delicate zone by Cape Poge landowners qualifies as “keeping it as natural as they can”. Nobody is being villainized – they did that to themselves.
Exactly. The beaches ARE open. Blaming residents of Cape Pogue for the fact the beaches have eroded and you can’t drive on all of them anymore is ridiculous. Claiming they are “closed” and private landowners are PREVENTING access is also ridiculous. Are they closed? No. Can the public still use them, yes. Does the public still access them every day by means other than OSV? Yes. Can the public still drive to all of them? No, but neither can anyone else. Property owners driving to their homes is not the same as visitors driving to recreate on the beach. Making enemies with the people who have generously permitted access all these years is cutting off your nose in spite of your face. Petty. Petty. Petty.
Hi Judi, I hope to clarify a few points. I believe civil discourse and reasonable compromise on BOTH sides of this issue is the only path to lasting success. The lack of vehicular access to the Cape Poge beaches is not in any way related to erosion. Is is completely man-made, born from various legal entanglements which have been pursued by certain Cape Poge residents. These residents have taken extreme measures to frustrate and confound the owners of this property (the Trustees) and the local authorities who oversee regulations (ConCom and others). These legal acrobatics include but are not limited to protesting the existence of a physical certificate that all parties agree was issued in the 1990’s, taking the Trustees to Mass Land Court (court date October 2), forcing the involvement of the MEP and so on. The public should not be required to endure these excruciating actions, nor will the public grovel to these abutters who do not own the property. Ultimately, the legal process will render it’s opinions, but it is a shame that three years of access have been stolen from the public.