Westport Conservation Commission Rejects $3 Million Property Sale Amid Development Concerns

In a recent meeting, the Westport Conservation Commission navigated a series of discussions that underscored ongoing tensions between development interests and environmental preservation, culminating in a decisive vote against releasing a $3 million property from Chapter 61A status due to its extensive wetlands and limited development potential. The commission also approved various building projects while enforcing regulations on wetland violations.

01:07:51The commission’s decision not to release the property from Chapter 61A, a classification that provides tax benefits for lands in agricultural or forest use, was a response to the property’s high price and minimal developable area. Several members expressed skepticism about the feasibility of developing the land, which features significant wetlands and a challenging wetland crossing. One member highlighted that the property, despite its $3 million price tag, had been deemed excessive for its actual value due to its environmental constraints. Historical context was provided, noting familial disputes that had inflated the property’s value. The member argued that the town could not afford the price and the likelihood of development was slim, urging the board to maintain the 61A status.

Further complicating matters, the commission deliberated on the implications of not releasing the 61A status. Concerns were raised about the town potentially missing out on tax revenue if the property remained in its current classification. One member questioned the potential tax benefits, asking how much revenue could be derived from a property with such extensive wetlands. Ultimately, the motion to not release the property from 61A passed with four members opposing the release and one abstaining.

29:28In addition to the property debate, the commission evaluated a development proposal for a 2.6-acre parcel adjacent to Kirby Brook. The project aimed to combine three lots into one for constructing a single-family home, utilizing an existing oversized septic system originally intended for a commercial plaza. The commission heard concerns about potential environmental impacts, including stormwater management and the integrity of nearby wetlands. A resident’s letter of opposition highlighted the importance of the wetlands’ ecosystem functions, urging the commission to deny the application. Despite these concerns, the commission considered approving the project, pending various conditions related to stormwater management and Board of Health approval.

01:12:39The meeting also addressed enforcement orders for two wetland violations. The first involved unauthorized filling in wetlands by a business owner, prompting the commission to issue an order for restoration. A similar situation was reported for a parcel where landscape debris was being dumped, altering the land’s natural state. Restoration was emphasized for both cases, with enforcement orders passing without opposition.

48:32Additionally, the commission reviewed resource area delineations for several properties, including a significant 28-acre parcel on Sodom Road. The wetlands were flagged, and a site visit confirmed the delineation’s accuracy. The motion to approve the delineation passed unanimously.

01:08:12A separate discussion centered around a property owned by Warren Messia, which was under consideration for purchase by the Buzzards Bay Coalition. Despite the property’s significant wetlands and brook, it was viewed as less valuable for conservation due to its protected status under the Rivers Protection Act. While one member supported the acquisition for its ecological benefits, they noted the land’s wet characteristics limited its development potential.

10:47The commission also approved septic system upgrades and new construction projects at Shirley Street and Prospect Street, emphasizing compliance with environmental regulations.

Note: This meeting summary was generated by AI, which can occasionally misspell names, misattribute actions, and state inaccuracies. This summary is intended to be a starting point and you should review the meeting record linked above before acting on anything you read. If we got something wrong, let us know. We’re working every day to improve our process in pursuit of universal local government transparency.

Receive debriefs about local meetings in your inbox weekly: