Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use Easements topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Commission continues Roderick dock/deck hearing after owner, abutter and DEP concerns over easement and signatures
Summary
The Conservation Commission continued an application to rebuild a small deck at the end of a right-of-way after abutters said the applicant lacks owner consent and an outstanding enforcement order and MassDEP raised questions; the commission asked for owner signatures or legal opinion and continued the hearing to Feb. 18.
The Wareham Conservation Commission on Feb. 4 continued a notice-of-intent to rebuild a small deck at the end of a right-of-way after questions about ownership, an outstanding enforcement order and missing signatures.
Bill Lockwood of Lockwood Architects, representing Susan and David Roderick, described a 5-by-16-foot deck to be rebuilt “in place” from the land side with limited hand work and no dock into the water. He said the petitioners are easement holders on the right-of-way and that the work would be hand-built from the land side.
Abutters and easement holders objected. Jeffrey Johnson, who identified himself as owner of 16 Widows Cove Lane, told the commission he had engineering approvals for floating docks at his location and said the applicant had attached assessor maps in a way that suggested the applicant believed it had the right to rebuild on someone else’s land. Johnson said he had not been notified or given consent and alleged prior unpermitted brush clearing aimed at creating kayak access. “I have the right and … have the engineering and have the permits for 3 floating docks at my location,” Johnson said.
Staff and MassDEP raised procedural issues: commission staff said the application lacked the property-owner signature required on the NOI, and a MassDEP analyst had flagged a pending enforcement order and a previous NOI for the same area. Planning and legal questions about whether an easement-holder may seek permits without owner consent prompted commissioners to ask staff to get guidance from town counsel and to request a written legal opinion from the applicant’s counsel that the easement allows construction.
Outcome: The commission voted to continue the matter to Feb. 18, 2026, and asked the applicants to provide property-owner signatures (or withdraw) and a legal opinion about rights to build under the easement. If the applicant cannot produce the owner’s consent, commissioners said denial would be possible; staff advised the application could be considered incomplete without required signatures.
