Landowners in Hot Water for Cutting Down Trees on Their Own Land

In Wauwinet, Nantucket, a couple has found themselves in a sticky situation. Paula and Matthew Dacey, owners of 14 Plover Lane, have been slapped with a hefty fine. The reason? They cut down half an acre of vegetation on their own property. This might sound surprising, but there is a strict rule against clear-cutting, which is the process of removing most or all trees in an area at once. The Daceys bought their property in 2022 for $1 million, and it's now valued at $4. 5 million. However, their recent actions have landed them in trouble with the Conservation Commission. The couple faces a $300 daily fine until they present a restoration plan to the commission. This fine has already racked up to $14, 100, and it will continue to grow until they take action. The Conservation Commission is serious about this matter. Seth Engelbourg, the chair, emphasized the importance of upholding the Wetland Protection Act and setting an example for others. The commission wants to ensure that such violations do not go unpunished. They have given the Daceys until March 20, 2025, to submit their restoration plan, but so far, no plan has been received. The commission will review the Daceys' planting plan and visit the site on April 1, 2025. Engelbourg views this planting plan as a crucial first step towards restoring the native vegetation. Meanwhile, land-use lawyer Dan Bailey has commented on the incident, suggesting that the clear-cutting was intentional to improve the property's value. This raises questions about the motivations behind such actions and the potential consequences for the environment. It's important to note that this is not an isolated incident. Just a few years ago, a similar case occurred at 2 Gully Road in Sconset, where a homeowner destroyed over 130 trees. This pattern of behavior highlights the need for stricter enforcement of environmental regulations. The Daceys' situation serves as a reminder that even actions taken on one's own property can have significant environmental impacts and legal consequences. The outcome of this case will be closely watched. It remains to be seen how the Daceys will handle the situation and whether the commission's actions will lead to meaningful environmental restoration. This case also raises broader questions about property rights, environmental protection, and the balance between the two.