The Nantucket Conservation Commission took further action on an enforcement case at 14 Clover Lane, where unauthorized vegetation clearing and other unpermitted work had been the subject of an earlier enforcement order.

Conservation staff reported that professional contractors installed the restoration plantings required by the enforcement order and that temporary irrigation and deer-protection work were in progress. Brian Madden, representing the property owner’s team, confirmed that plantings received “a heavy dosing of watering immediately after planting” and said Water Works was installing temporary irrigation. Madden said deer-fencing “has not yet fully been completed” but was in progress.

Abutters and their counsel said the planting work had been slow to materialize and that some required plantings remain on abutter properties. Attorney Dan Bailey, representing neighbors, said his clients remain concerned that plantings on adjacent parcels at 12 and 16 Plover Lane — which Bailey said were also damaged — have not been installed and that his clients would not agree to release claims simply in exchange for plantings. Bailey said his clients want shore- and site-specific monitoring, watering and invasive-species controls included in any final settlement.

The commission amended its enforcement order to set two near-term deadlines: all on-site outdoor lighting must comply with the Nantucket outdoor-lighting code by June 5, 2025; and an unpermitted fence installed on the site must be removed or replaced with an approved, functioning deer-protection system by June 5, 2025. Commissioners said they would permit temporary, functional deer protection while plantings establish, but rejected keeping the unpermitted fence that runs along the lot line; staff reported the existing wire/privacy fence is a weak deterrent to local deer and likely to be ineffective for plant protection.

Commissioners also discussed monetary penalties. Town counsel George Pucci advised the commission there are a range of enforcement options: the commission can assess penalties and pursue a civil penalty action under the Wetlands Protection Act, but the process can require select-board authorization and may ultimately be adjudicated in court. Pucci noted the commission’s updated fee schedule already includes an ‘after-the-fact’ penalty payment submitted with the recent notice of intent filing; that sum had been paid and will be considered as the commission and counsel evaluate next steps.

Chair Seth Engelberg asked counsel to prepare a memo outlining legal options, likely timing and procedural steps; counsel agreed and will provide a written memo and attend the June 5 meeting if needed. Commissioners were split on whether to pursue fines immediately but a majority signaled they wanted options prepared: four commissioners supported pursuing a monetary penalty option and asked for a legal memo, two commissioners asked for more time and consideration of compliance steps before a penalty, and one commissioner was undecided. The commission scheduled the next discussion and potential action for the June 5 meeting to coincide with the notice of intent filed by the property owner.

Why it matters: neighbors and the commission described the clearing as a significant, unpermitted disturbance to buffer-zone vegetation and wetland-adjacent land. The commission used its enforcement authority to secure restoration plantings, set near-term compliance deadlines for lighting and the unpermitted fence, and to pursue legal advice on civil penalties to deter similar conduct.

What happens next: staff will monitor planting survival and irrigation; the commission directed town counsel to draft enforcement/penalty options and appear June 5. If neighbors and the property owner cannot reach an agreement about plantings on abutting parcels, the commission may consider additional enforcement or bond/assurance requirements in the pending notice-of-intent review.