Conservation panel denies compliance for Burgess Point property, orders removal of unauthorized stone on private way

The Wareham Conservation Commission on June 17 denied a certificate of compliance for 72B Burgess Point Road and directed staff to prepare an enforcement order after determining stone had been placed along the private way within a floodplain resource area without prior approval.

At the hearing, owner Ryan Blackco acknowledged he paid to place stone in front of his driveway and said he intended to repair a winter‑rut damaged private way. Multiple commissioners responded that the extent of material on the roadway exceeded the approved plan and extended into resource area subject to the town bylaw and the Massachusetts Wetlands Protection Act. One commissioner said the stone “should not be what it is now” because the area had previously been a dirt road.

The commission moved to deny the certificate of compliance for SC‑76‑2735 and instructed staff to record an enforcement order requiring removal of stone from the road and restoration of the prior surface in front of properties at 72/72A/72B Burgess Point Road. Commissioners discussed two ways to proceed: (1) property owners file an after‑the‑fact Notice of Intent (NOI) that includes signatures from all owners whose parcels are affected and that documents restoration, or (2) the commission issue an enforcement order recorded on deed(s) while staff works with owners to prepare the NOI and restoration plan. The commission said the enforcement order will remain until restoration is complete.

Blackco told the panel he was prepared to remove the material, that he had limited his work to the area in front of his parcel and had tied into preexisting stone elsewhere on the private way, and that he would cooperate with the commission. Staff and commissioners said they would identify other property owners where similar material was installed and issue additional enforcement orders if needed.

Christine (the commission’s agent) said the stone on the roadway constitutes work in a flood‑zone resource area and therefore requires a formal filing. The commission’s action explicitly denied the COC in order to preserve the commission’s enforcement authority while the road restoration is planned.

The commission directed staff to: prepare and record an enforcement order for the affected parcels; notify property owners of required filings; and accept an after‑the‑fact NOI with signed owner approval to authorize removal work and restoration. No fines or civil penalties were announced at the meeting; commissioners discussed that enforcement remedies and restoration methods would be clarified as owners submit the NOI.

The denial and enforcement action mean there will be a record tied to the property until the stone is removed and the commission signs a new certificate of compliance or otherwise closes the enforcement matter.

The meeting closed with the commission instructing the owner to contact staff (Christine) to coordinate paperwork and the timeframe for restoration.