Natural Heritage & Endangered Species Program (NHESP) gives Makepeace “take permit” for 10 rare and endangered species and 50 acres of Priority Habitat 601
Mining misrepresented as “cranberry agriculture”?
No earth removal permit from Wareham making the sand mining illegal
Above: Persius Dusky Wing, Endangered Species in Massachusetts. NHESP allowed Makepeace to “take” this species by destroying its habitat.Above: Northern Tiger Beetle, Endangered Species in Massachusetts. NHESP allowed Makepeace to “take” this species by destroying its habitat.
From 2014 to 2021, AD Makepeace clearcut and strip mined 50 acres of pristine Pine Barrens habitat classified as Priority Habitat 601 by NHESP under the Massachusetts Endangered Species Act. Makepeace leased the land to Borrego Solar to build 50- acre solar porject. Now it is owed by another solar company, Clearway.
Background
In 2014, Makepeace applied to the Wareham Planning Board for site plan review to install Phase 1 of a 52 acre ground mounted solar project to be built by Borrego Solar. Makepeace’s Jim Kane wrote to the Planning Board Chair George Barrett this was likely Makepeace’s “last large ground mounted solar project under the existing regulatory system”. A few years later, the company revealed plans to build at least three more large grounded solar projects in Wareham: at 140 and 150 Tihonet Road and 27 Charge Pond Road. Makepeace built about 15 large ground mounted solar projects in Wareham and Carver. Most of these involved sand and gravel mining. Makepeace’s solar projects, most of them preceded by mining. As of 2025, Makepeace has proposed a 40 acre ground mounted solar project and BESS system at 0 Maple Springs Road in Wareham, 2 miles of solar canopy on its Canning Bogs on Frogfoot Brook and on Jordan Road in Plymouth.
At the 160 Tihonet Road, Wareham site, in 2014, Makepeace told the state environmental review office, Massachusetts Environmental Policy Act (MEPA) “The site will be cleared and graded to a level area ranging from approximately 64’ to 68’ above sea level”. MEPA ignored the environmental impacts of changing the topography and removing groundwater protection. It blindly repeated this in its MEPA Certificate.Makepeace’s consultant Beals + Thomas said in the MEPA Environmental Notification Form: it is “anticipated that excavated earth material will be used in the vicinity of the site such that travel via town roads will be avoided.” This is implausible.
According to witnesses, Makepeace trucked the sand to Carver to its Read Custom Soils for commercial sale and directly out of town.
Between 2014 and 2018, approximately 22 acres of the 52 acre site were cleared. Borrego installed the first phase of the Borrego solar project in approximately 2015.
State NHESP allows destruction of Priority Habitat
The 160 Tihonet Road location was once “Priority Mapped Habitat” designated under the Massachusetts Endangered Species Act. In 2015, Mass Wildlife, which is supposed to protect our wildlife and rare natural plant and animal communities gave Makepeace a permit to kill 10 Pine Barrens species protected by law under the Massachusetts Endangered Species Act (MESA). This included the endangered Northern Barrens Tiger Beetle and Persius Duskywing butterfly.
After Makepeace destroyed 50 acres of Priority Habitat 601, NHESP redrew the map.
Below: This map from NHESP shows Priority Habitat (PH) 601 after Makepeace destroyed 50 acres by sand mining then installed a large solar project.
Below: AD Makepeace sand mining at 160 Tihonet Road, Wareham, 2018. The sand mining is clearly visible on Google Earth. Residents complained of non-stop tractor trailer trucks leaving the site. The Wareham Select Board and the state ignored the mining.
MassWildlife issued the permit through its Natural Heritage and Endangered Species Program (NHESP). The permit to kill, or “take” the species is ironically called a “Conservation and Management Permit”. The law requires “mitigation”. How can endangered species be conserved and “managed” when more and more habitat is destroyed? What is the cumulative impact of all the deforestation by Makepeace and other solar and sand mining operations in the Pine Barrens?
Below is an excerpt from the 2015 NHESP permit for Makepeace to “take” 10 legally protected species so it could say it was strip mining 50 acres “in compliance with the state endangered species law.”
Makepeace calls the mining and solar “cookie cutter”
In a letter to the Wareham Planning Board in 2014, Jim Kane, Makepeace CEO said “This project is the same cookie cutter solar project like Charlotte Furnace and Tihonet West solar in Wareham and Federal Road in Carver.” At these three other sites, solar was preceded by forest clear-cuts, endangered species habitat destruction and extraction and commercial sale of sand and gravel. Does “cookie cutter” mean environmental destruction and killing off endangered and rare species to Makepeace CEO Jim Kane? See the letter her:
https://communitylandandwater.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/03/FINAL-CLWC-LOGO-no-background-297x300.png00CLwpBShttps://communitylandandwater.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/03/FINAL-CLWC-LOGO-no-background-297x300.pngCLwpBS2025-04-29 11:40:002025-12-29 15:37:24Wareham: 160 Tihonet Road: AD Makepeace Co. sand mining impacts on endangered species
CLWC responds to Governor Healey’s claim that the state’s environmental investigation shows sand mining in Southeastern Massachusetts
violates no laws
August 26, 2024
On August 20, 2024, a network of groups delivered a petition to Massachusetts Governor Healey for a moratorium on sand mining. Governor Healey’s top environmental spokesperson responded that the state investigated and found no violations. This is a stunning remark. The evidence collected and presented to our top environmental officials since 2019 shows clear violations of the law. If these aren’t violations, what is?
What Governor Healey said
In a story published in the State House News Service on August 20, 2024, the Healey Administration’s environmental spokesperson responded to the petition request for a moratorium on sand mining saying there are no violations of environmental laws. Spokesperson Hardiman said:
“We are aware of the concerns raised by advocates about sand mining activities and their potential environmental impacts,” EEA spokesperson Maria Hardiman said in a statement to the News Service. “We have thoroughly considered these concerns when making permitting decisions and conducting inspections, and have not yet identified violations of relevant laws, regulations, or permits and will continue to look into this issue. We met with the advocates last year to address these concerns, and we are committed to conducting a further review of the potential impacts associated with sand mining and addressing specific complaints about environmental regulations.”
This statement is in contrast to the reality before our very eyes. For years, residents have been suffering from the impacts of sand mining. Learn more in the short film, Sand Wars in Cranberry Country.
5 Questions for Governor Healey
1. What law allows open pit mines to fill people’s yards and lungs with silica dust?
Governor, what laws allow open pit mines to fill Southeastern Massachusetts communities with windblown sand year after year?
Sand from mining operations becomes wind blown and covers homes, making it impossible for residents to open their windows without being exposed to carcinogenic silica sand from the mines. This violates air pollution and public nuisance laws at a minimum. The federal Mine Health and Safety Administration just finalized a new rule that applies to sand mine works dealing with silica sand. See the federal Respirable Crystalline Silica law here. Why does the Governor allow residents to be exposed?
SLT Construction mining operation on Spring Street and Route 44 in Carver MA. Since about 2018 sand has been blowing off the mining site on to peoples homes and yards, covering their cars. When the mining operator offered one resident coupons for a car wash, she asked for $36,000.00 — one car wash a day for 5 years. According to the resident, ‘I’m elderly, should I have to take my car to the car wash every day?” (Source available on request). Despite repeated requests to the Town of Carver and the state, the violations continue. Carver and SLT are fighting the residents in court on every level. The state is siding with SLT. Read more here and see the drone video here.
G. Lopes Construction/Bette Maki/Johnson Cranberry mining operation on Meadow Street in Carver MA. Read more on the blog here and watch the drone video. Since 2011, residents near the mine have been trapped in their home by sand storms. Sand fills their gutters and covers their skin when the go outside their homes. The site is still an open pit mine and the Town of Carver is fighting residents in court, siding with the mining operator. A story in the Boston Broadside reports on these environmental harms.
Below: Meadow Street, Carver MA. Sand from the abutting mine covers a resident’s car. G. Lopes Construction offered this resident few car wash coupons for a self-serve car wash as compensation for years of damage. Source available on request.
A massive sand mine on Meadow Street in Carver has been covering residents’ homes and cars for years.
2. What laws allow sand and gravel mines to pollute our ponds, rivers and wetlands?
Governor, what laws allow open pit sand pines to pollute our ponds, rivers and wetlands?
The public has given state environmental officials evidence of many violations of pollution of ponds, rivers and wetlands by mining operations.
Foley Farms – Ryco Construction mining operation on Rochester Road in Carver MA. This pollution was reported to MassDEP. It should never have occurred. MassDEP exempts these mines from pollution laws that are supposed to prevent erosion and stormwater runoff. Read more here.
Below: Sand from the SLT Construction 42 acre open pit mine on Spring Street in Carver MA covers Rickets Pond, what was once a pristine 11 acre pond. This photo was taken in January 2019 when the pond was frozen. Wind blown sand has been emitted from the Site since at least 2018 and continues.
3. What laws allow AD Makepeace Cranberry Co. and EJ Pontiff Cranberries to operate mines without final wetlands permits?
Governor, what laws allow the region’s mining giants AD Makepeace Cranberry Co. and EJ Pontiff Cranberries to conduct their current mining operations without wetlands permits?
Examples of current operations in violation of the Wetlands Protection Act:
AD Makepeace Cranberry Co. expanding its 50 acre mine at 46 Federal Road without a Final Order – wetlands permit. The Wetlands Regulations prohibit work on a project when there is a permit appeal pending. The work is ongoing at this mine. Read more here and see the drone video here.
EJ Pontiff Cranberries, Inc. expanding the mine at 104 Tremont Street without a Final Order – wetlands permit from the agency. In May, 2024 MassDEP REFUSED to stop this illegal mine. Instead, the agency falsely accused the lawyer for the Ten Residents Group of misconduct then had to basically withdraw the accusation. The mining continues. Read more here. We are waiting for EEA’s response on whether they will require a MEPA Environmental Impact Report on this 50+ acre mine. See the drone video here.
Both mines are in Environmental Justice Communities. With great fanfare, Governor Healey established a an Office of Equity and Environmental Justice. Why is the new office ignoring mines in environmental justice communities?
Watch the February 21, 2024 video of the Carver Earth Removal Committee public hearing on the expansion of Makepeace’s mining operation at 46 Federal Road, Carver in an Environmental Justice commuity. A speaker at hour/minute 1:45 breaks down crying and asks, “when will this end?” The speaker is a former member of the Carver Planning Board and Selectboard.
4. What laws allow mining operations to dredge in the sole source aquifer and conduct sand washing on site?
Governor, what laws allow mines to dredge in the Plymouth Carver Sole Source Aquifer and discharge process water on site?
Many, many mining operations uses the false pretense of digging and agricultural pond for cranberry farming in order to dig as deep as possible below ground to extract sand and gravel. They call this digging a “water hole” or “tailwater recovery pond” for cranberry operations. They are not required to show this is legitimate agriculture – which it is not. These are unlined ponds that expose the Aquifer to contamination from mining. They submit plans showing a 10 foot deep pond and then mine 50 feet or more. Some conduct sand washing operations on site and discharge process water on to the ground. Other mining operations that are pretending to be “subdivisions” also mine in the Aquifer.
Some examples:
E.J. Pontiff Cranberries and P.A. Landers, 140 Firehouse Road, Plymouth MA. Read more here.
Federal Furnace Cranberry/EJ Pontiff Cranberry, 104 Tremont Street, Carver MA. Read more here.
G. Lopes Construction and Scott Spencer, 10 Collins Ave.-Route 3. See the drone video here.
G.Lopes Construction/Bette Maki/Johnson Bros. Cranberry, Meadow Street, Carver MA. See the drone video here.
Governor, what about the money? It is no secret that no one, even AD Makepeace Co., the world’s largest cranberry grower, can make a reliable profit from cranberry farming. Mining sand on the other hand reaps tens of millions in instant profits almost no overhead costs. The two mining projects permitted by the Town of Carver in 2024 are for sand worth a total of about $48 million. Will you stand up to this profiteering?
Key facts and questions:
The cranberry farming is “break even at best” when it comes to profits according to any number of industry and government officials. At the bottom of this blog is our Nov. 2022 economic analysis of cranberries v. sand provided to MassDEP which responded only by siding with DEP in attempting to defend the 214-acre sand mining project.
Fifty acres of sand mining generates about $24 million in sand revenues with an almost pure profits. For example, an industry expert calculates the 50-acre illegal mining operation by EJ Pontiff at 104 Tremont Street is generating just that amount. Compare that to 50 acres of cranberry farming that is break even at best.
Is it true that the cranberry industry business association, Mass Cranberries, pays part of the salaries for Mass DEP wetlands staff to regulate the cranberry industry in Southeastern Massachusetts?
AD Makepeace Cranberry Co. and its subsidiaries gave a total of $75,000 to Governor Healey’s inauguration party-making it one of the largest donors, according to the Boston Globe. Follow the money, we say.
Why won’t Governor Healey take action to impose a moratorium on sand mining to protect our communities and the environment?
https://communitylandandwater.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/08/Screenshot-2024-08-25-at-4.28.29 PM.png6401122Meg Sheehanhttps://communitylandandwater.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/03/FINAL-CLWC-LOGO-no-background-297x300.pngMeg Sheehan2024-08-26 20:40:072025-12-29 17:01:03Response to Gov. Healey: Is this really legal?
Stop logging on public lands! Keep our trees standing and leave our forests alone for people and wildlife!
The Commonwealth of Massachusetts, Department of Conservation and Recreation, gives out logging contracts to private companies to clear-cut our state forests. These lands belong to the public. Our trees should be left alone to grow.
In Southeastern Massachusetts, the DCR is implementing a 10 year plan to log in Myles Standish State Forest. The state’s website page is here describing the logging jobs. The reasons they give – forest health – are not supported by current science. DCR burns the forest and clear cuts. They have never done an environmental impact statement on this plan. This is not sound “habitat restoration.”
Forests and soils sequester carbon and protect biodiversity. We should not be logging ou
This page documents the failure of the Conservation Commission to do its job. It repeatedly violates the Open Meeting Law and issues waivers and exemptions with no legitimate grounds.
West Pond violations
Extensive violations reported and documented at 403 Federal Furnace Road in 2019. This includes destroying pond shore of a Priority Habitat pond with rare and endangered species. The Commission has refused to require the landowner to complete the “restoration” required by law. New violations occurred in March 2022 and were reported. When the Commission did nothing in 2019, a resident was forced to appeal to the state. Neither the state nor DEP have done anything to remedy the violations as of October 2023.
Herring Pond violations
Multiple violations reported by residents and Herring Pond Watershed Association. Violations reported in public meetings of the Conservation Commission. As of October 2023, the Commission has taken no action.
Boot Pond violations
Violations reported in 2022: clearing endangered species habitat, forests, vegetation on pond shore. Action to date: nothing reported
South Ponds Preserve – Town Forest violations
The Town is not doing its job to protect the Forest. The state is responsible too: find out more on this page. Violations are documented below
2022
August 17, 2022: violations continued the past two weeks. On 8/17/22 at about 7 p.m. fishing boat with gas engines go on the pond. The CR allows electric engines only. Harbormaster called. No signs say “no gas motors.”
August 4, 9:59 p.m. Illegal fire near aqueduct. Reported to Plymouth Fire Dept. and extinguished.
July 27, 2022-Wednesday. Erosion from Drew Road to Little South Pond in the Town Forest. This has been ongoing since 2020 when illegal parking on Drew Road eroded the road banking. Violation of Wetlands Protection Act, Conservation Restriction.
July 27, 2022 Drew Road Town Forest. Illegal trail resulting in runoff into Little South Pond.
July 23, 2022-Sunday
Report of ATV’s accessing Little South Pond/Drew Road beach via the Town DPW water supply well site on Rocky Pond Road. ATV tracks observed on Little South Pond beach.
Police called, “too busy” to address report of about 20 people swimming in Little South Pond and using blow up flotation devices; cars illegally parked along Drew Road.
More to come…
2020
August 2020: Plymouth Board of Selectmen agree that CR prohibits swimming, make this announcement. What happened?
Legal challenges to A.D. Makepeace’s proposed mining & solar operation at 140 Tihonet Road dismissed, fight continues
Update: December, 2023.
Since 2021, the Community Land & Water Coalition (CLWC) has worked to raise awareness about the negative environmental and community impacts of A.D. Makepeace’s proposed 176 acres of forest clearcutting for large solar in Wareham. The three proposed solar sites are in addition to the approximately 12 solar projects over at least 350 acres that A.D. Makepeace Cranberry Co. has built already in the Plymouth, Carver, and Wareham area. CLWC and its network are committed to proper solar siting, not clearing forests for solar. Read more in the Mass Audubon study, Growing Solar, Protecting Nature. CLWC launched the Sand Wars in Cranberry Countyproject to expose the link between sand and gravel mining and large solar, like the 140 Tihonet Road project. Visit the Sand Wars website here.
At the 140 Tihonet Road site, A.D. Makepeace proposes to level one of the highest hills in Wareham for sand and gravel mining – about 1 million cubic yards on about 65 acres. Read more about the project here. Makepeace first proposed the solar project with Borrego Solar, which is now called New Leaf Solar. As of December 2023, two lawsuits challenging the Town’s permits have been unsuccessful. This post is about the legal challenges and how the Wareham Town Clerk submitted an inaccurate court affidavit to help Makepeace fight the lawsuits.
Legal challenge to Town wetlands permit
When residents challenged the permit the Town gave to Makepeace, Makepeace tried to get the residents lawsuit dismissed saying the residents had no legal standing to bring the case. On January 2023 Superior Court judge Buckley rejected Makepeace’s motion to dismiss and allowed residents’ opposition to go forward. The story was covered by the Wareham Week.
At the next stage in the legal process in December 2023, the residents lost. Superior Court Judge Glenny ruled for Makepeace and New Leaf under the Town’s Wetlands Protective Bylaw. The decision is incomplete and flawed because it addressed only three of the five legal issues. It is clear the Judge does not know how to, or didn’t want to, read the project plans vis-à-vis the plaintiff-residents’ argument about impacts to a vernal pool, though he provides an alternative reason for rejecting their argument. Plaintiffs have the right to appeal and pursue other avenues. Read the decision here.
This case challenged the Town Planning Board permit. In March 2022, the Superior Court ruled plaintiffs, Wareham residents, did not have legal standing to bring the lawsuit. This was a flawed legal decision but plaintiffs decided to drop the case and fight the project on other fronts.
Town Clerk corruption to support A.D. Makepeace in the Planning Board lawsuit?
During the Planning Board case Makepeace and Borrego played dirty. They got the Wareham Town Clerk to submit an inaccurate affidavit saying the plaintiff residents did not file their lawsuit on time. Plaintiffs’ lawyers show this was not true and Makepeace was forced to withdraw affidavit.
Background on the Town Clerk’s Inaccurate Affidavit for Makepeace
In April 2021, two Wareham residents filed a lawsuit against the Wareham Planning Board’s March 2021 decision to approve a plan by AD Makepeace to strip mine about 65 acres of forest, remove $10 million worth of sand and gravel (about 1 million cubic yards), and lease the stripped land to Borrego Solar for an industrial solar project. The Wareham lawsuit claimed the Planning Board decision was arbitrary and capricious and not in accordance with law.
The sand mining site is pristine Pine Barrens forest on the shores of Tihonet Pond in the heart of Wareham at 140 Tihonet Road. According to an expert report the strip mining for solar means “nothing much will grow here again in any human timeframe, even after the solar panels are removed.”
Makepeace and Borrego have already destroyed over 300 acres of forests in the area under this earth removal and solar scheme. The 140 Tihonet Road project would be the 12th earth removal and solar project by the two companies.
Wareham Town Clerk Alters Legal Document
In December 2021, Makepeace and Borrego asked the court to dismiss the plaintiffs-resident’s lawsuit claiming the plaintiffs had missed the deadline under the zoning law, Chapter 40A, Section 17. This law requires a person appealing a zoning decision to give the town’s clerk written “notice” that an appeal was filed. The last day for the plaintiff to file the notice with the Wareham Town Clerk was April 20, 2021.
To support a motion by Makepeace and Borrego to get the lawsuit dismissed, Wareham Town Clerk, Michelle Bissonnette signed an Affidavit dated November 22, 2021, under the pains and penalties of perjury stating plaintiffs filed the notice late, on April 21, not April 20. This was inaccurate — in fact, plaintiffs filed the notice on time. Plaintiffs lawyers forced the Town Clerk to disclose her emails and they showed plaintiffs were right – they filed the notice on time. Makepeace and Borrego were forced to withdraw their false claim which they did on December 21, 2021.
The key quote in Bissonnette’s sworn Affidavit is that prior to April 21 – the day after the deadline – she had “no knowledge” that a lawsuit was filed.
Above: November 22, 2021 Affidavit of Michelle Bissonnette filed in Land Court Case 21 MISC 000221(HPS)
The Clerk also wrote in the Affidavit that she had “a specific memory of personally receiving this notice of appeal [on April 21] because the machine we use for date stamping was not functioning properly….”
With her Affidavit to the court, Bissonnette attached a date-stamped copy of plaintiff’s April 20, 2021 notice given to her as Town Clerk. See page 5 of the Affidavit.
The date stamp is altered – first it was stamped “April 20” but there is a handwritten “1” over the “0” to make it appear that the notice was received on April 21, a day late. That stamp was made with a hand stamp, not the machine that she states was “not functioning properly.”
Town Clerk Bissonnette altered the date stamp to say April 21, 2021
Residents reveal the truth about the Town’ Clerk’s affidavit
After receiving the inaccurate Affidavit, the plaintiffs’ lawyers were forced to spend time and money to try to get to the truth. The lawyers had an email record that they gave the clerk notice in time. The residents lawyers gave this email Makepeace and Borrego lawyers in December, 2021 as soon as they saw the false claim by Makepeace. The Makepeace and Borrego lawyers did nothing for almost a week and forced the plaintiffs to do discovery in court.
For court discovery, the plaintiff’s lawyers noticed the deposition of Clerk Bissonnette for December 16, 2021 to question her under oath. They required that she produce all her emails from April 20, less than 24 hours before the December 16 deposition, and almost a week after the plaintiff gave the defendants their copy of the April 20 email notice, Town Counsel Bowen released 59 pages of Clerk Bissonnette’s emails.
Clerk confers with Selectman Teitelbaum about date stamping the notice late
The emails show the Town Clerk had not only received the notice on April 20, 2021 (despite her claims otherwise) — but within minutes of receiving the notice she denied receiving, she forwarded the timely notice to Town Counsel Bowen and her friend and colleague, then-chair of the Wareham Board of Selectmen Peter Teitelbaum, who is an attorney no less. See page 2 of PDF.
Bissonnette declared to Teitelbaum and Bowen in her email, “As far as I’m concerned, this is not a court document yet.” Page 2 of PDF She asked for advice on whether she had to “accept” the timely filed notice.
About 15 minutes later, Town Counsel replied by email and advised Bissonnette she should accept the notice; the Board of Selectman member meanwhile busily checked the court online dockets. On April 20, 2021, minutes after getting the email from Bissonnette, Teitebaum checked the Superior Court online case index. At 3:58 PM he wrote to Bissonnette and Bowen saying nothing was filed in Superior Court.
Selectman Teitelbaum’s April 20, 2021 3:58 p.m. email to Bissonnette and Bowen
Minutes later Teitelbaum reports to the Town Clerk and Town Counsel that — oops…the complaint was properly filed in Land Court.
Selectman Teitelbaum’s April 20, 2021 4:01 p.m. email to Bissonnette and Bowen
Even though Teitelbaum was told on April 20 that the lawsuit was filed that day, Bissonnette swore under the pains and penalties of perjury in her court Affidavit that she had “no knowledge” of it. Why did she swear to this in a court Affidavit?
Town Clerk’s only job was to accurately date stamp the notice on the date it was received – which she did not do
A Town Clerk’s job under Chapter 40A, Section 17 is to simply accept the notice and copy of the complaint and accurately date stamp the notice with the date she receives it. Instead, Wareham Town Clerk Bissonnette conferred with and sought advice from Selectman Teitelbaum and Town Counsel on whether she “accept” the notice, because — in her opinion — the notice and complaint were not a “court document.” The law does not require her to get a copy of a “court document” but only a notice and copy of the complaint, which she is required to date stamp. Why didn’t she do this?
Did the Town Clerk inject her personal political bias into the job? Were she and Teitelbaum hoping to derail the lawsuit? Why did she say under pains and penalties of perjury that she “had no personal knowledge” of the notice on April 20, 2021 — even though her emails show that she read the notice and saw the complaint that very day?
As his emails show, Selectman Teitelbaum, an attorney, helped Bissonnette investigate whether the complaint was filed in court on April 20, 2021 or not. The Town Clerk is an elected position and does not report to the Board of Selectmen. Why was the Town Clerk seeking advice from a Selectman who is not Town Counsel and has no authority over the job of Town Clerk?
Were these elected town officials trying to derail the citizen lawsuit against Makepeace and Borrego by trying to find an excuse to date stamp it late?
At its December 14, 2021 meeting, the Board discussed (at 1:05:20 on video) how they would respond to the voters’ wishes to account for all the sand removed from Wareham. Selectman Teitelbaum was the only Board member to vote NO to a plan to investigate Makepeace’s sand mining. Why?
Above: AD Makepeace sand mining site, 160 Tihonet Road, Wareham 2018. 50 acres were destroyed; sand was mined without an Earth Removal Permit from the Wareham Board of Selectman under the Earth Removal Bylaw.
https://communitylandandwater.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/03/FINAL-CLWC-LOGO-no-background-297x300.png00CLwpBShttps://communitylandandwater.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/03/FINAL-CLWC-LOGO-no-background-297x300.pngCLwpBS2022-04-04 21:34:522025-12-29 16:55:14Wareham: AD Makepeace 140 Tihonet Road strip mining and solar project: legal challenges
Above: AD Makepeace sand mining site, 160 Tihonet Road, Wareham 2018. 50 acres were destroyed; sand was mined without an Earth Removal Permit from the Wareham Board of Selectman under the Earth Removal Bylaw. 
