Town Council Votes And Then Rescinds Vote To Take Narrow Beach Lot By Eminent Domain

/, 0 Comments

For many years, the ownership and use of a 5-foot-wide strip of land running from Charlestown Beach Road to the beach has been the subject of much discussion. This property is shown as Plat 9, Lot 19, on the town’s plat maps and is shown on the property card as being owned by the town of Charlestown. On the banner image for this post, Lot 19 is shown as the narrow lot in red without yellow shading.

Most recently, the property has been the subject of two Town Council Executive Sessions:

  • On March 10, 2025, “potential litigation” regarding Lot 19, was on the agenda for the Town Council’s Executive Session. The Town Council returned to open session and voted to authorize the Town Solicitor to draft a resolution to give the town authority to acquire Lot 19 by eminent domain and place the resolution on the March 24 Town Council meeting agenda. There was no discussion, and the vote was unanimous.
  • Then seven days later, on March 17,2025, “potential litigation” regarding Lot 19 was again the subject of an Executive Session agenda. The Town Council returned to open session and voted to reconsider and then to rescind its March 10 vote. Both votes were 3 to 2, with Councilors Carney, Marr, and Slom in favor and Councilors Rippy and Stokes opposed. President Carney announced that the process of a title search is continuing.

Appearing in the agenda packet for each Executive Session is a memorandum by the Town Solicitor dated February 25, 2025. The memorandum, an update of a report dated March 3, 2021, discussed whether Lot 19 is solely owned by the town of Charlestown or in common ownership with others, and what rights may be asserted, if any. The work was done in the context of comments made in Town Council meetings asserting that Lot 19 should be used to allow public access over it to reach the beach.

The memo notes that in September 1930 the property was conveyed to Charles W. Reitzel and that the “ROW Deed” stated in relevant part the following: “This land is not to be used for any other purpose than a private right of way from the highway to the sea and return, and the persons named shall have the right to pass over it . . . .” Lot 19 was then purportedly sold to the town by Mr. Reitzel in September 2004, although it is unclear whether Mr. Reitzel was able to convey any interest to the town.

The Town Solicitor thus concluded the following:

“Given all of what has been able to be ascertained about the Property, the Town’s ability to exercise any rights with respect to the Property are limited by the rights of others. In practical terms, this means that the Town cannot use the Property for public access to the beach, cannot put signage or fencing on the Property, nor occupy it in such a manner as to impede the rights of the other co-owners in the Property. The Town cannot expand its use of the Property, such as allowing public access to the beach, without the consent of all other co-owners. The Town also has obligations to the other co-owners, which may include paying a portion of taxes, insurance, and maintenance fees, and ensuring that their actions do not damage the Property or interfere with the rights of the other owners. Major alterations to the Property, such as construction or structural changes, typically require the consent of all co-owners. Lastly, in the event of disputes regarding the use or maintenance of the Property, legal action between all owners may be required.”

Little is known about the potential litigation referenced in the meeting notice or why the Town Council planned to take private property by eminent domain and why they then revoked that vote.

However, minutes of Town Council meetings going back to 2004, the year the town purportedly purchased Lot 19, reveal additional detail about the history regarding the property.

  • 2004–The September minutes record that the Council voted to purchase Lot 19 which had been acquired by a tax sale but had not been foreclosed. It was also noted that the property had been used by the public as a right of way and that there had been efforts to possibly limit public access to the water through the purchase of this parcel.
  • 2012–The Town Council addressed several issues regarding Lot 19, including in three Executive Sessions, one regarding “potential litigation” and two regarding “beach access.” In among the Executive Sessions, were discussions in open session regarding complaints about a fence that had been placed across Lot 19 and a report that “No Trespassing” signs had been posted by the town.
  • 2014–A warrant item proposing to sell Lot 19 for an amount less than $4,000 was discussed. The Town Council decided unanimously not to place the item on the warrant, noting the property was access to the beach and an easement for dredging.
  • 2021–Lot 19 was again on several agendas. Discussion of signage that would read “Property of the Town of Charlestown” was continued pending receipt of an initial report from the Town Solicitor regarding the ownership of Lot 19 and the town’s rights and interests in the property. The report, dated March 3, 2021, was received and discussed on March 22. The conclusion of the Solicitor was that “if the Town owns the Property at all, then it is a subservient interest to the rights of about a dozen other property owners, more or less, ‘to cross and recross for foot travel only’ from Charlestown Beach Road to the Atlantic Ocean.” At that same meeting, a motion to place a sign on the property that would read “Town Access to the Shore” was defeated. The Town Administrator also was authorized to contact the property owner of the abutting lot to ask them to remove the “No Public Access” sign and to investigate whether a second sign along the path that stated “Members Only Beyond This Point” was on town property or on the abutting property. He was directed to remove the sign if it was on town property and, otherwise, to ask the owner if they would be willing to remove the sign. At a subsequent meeting, the Town Council addressed a motion to remove the “No Public Access” sign and replace it with one that would read “Town Access to the Shore”; the motion was amended to remove the replacement, and the Council voted to remove the sign that read “No Public Access.”
  • 2023–The property was back on the agenda. The Council first voted to do a title search of town-owned properties. Subsequently, in August, the Council discussed signage “on or near Lot 19” and instructed the Town Solicitor to provide a title examination and report on the ownership of Lot 19.

The text of the memorandum from the Town Solicitor dated February 25, 2025 follows:

To: Peter D. Ruggiero
From: David R. Petrarca, Jr.
Date: February 25, 2025
Re: Plat Map 9 / Lot 19 – Charlestown Beach Road Ownership

You have asked me to further investigate and research whether the property known as Lot 19 on Tax Assessor’s Plat 9 (“Property”) is solely owned by the Town of Charlestown (“Town”) or in common ownership with others, and what rights may be asserted by the Town, if any, over the Property. This is an update from my March 3, 2021 memorandum. I understand the context of this request is due to comments raised at Town Council meetings in which assertions have been made that the Property should be used to allow public access over it to reach the beach—simply put, the Town cannot expand the use of this Property to allow for public access to the beach from Charlestown Beach Road. I have examined the Charlestown Land Evidence Records, extensive research gathered by the Tax Assessor, along with other records in possession of the Town, and I have concluded that if Town has any property interests in the Property at all, then it is, at best, in common ownership with, if not a subservient interest to the rights of about at least seven other property owners, “to cross and recross for foot travel only” from Charlestown Beach Road to the Atlantic Ocean.

The Town purported to purchase the Property for $3,000.00 on September 27, 2004 and received a Quitclaim Deed (“Town Deed”). The Town’s interest is not perfected as the grantor’s interest in the Property—and therefore his ability to convey any interest to the Town—is uncertain and based on assumptions that the document record does not verify and conflicts in several areas. For instance, in the Town Deed, the grantor purports to be able to convey the Property to the Town because it was devised “by Will” to him by Charles Reitzel, when the record reveals that Charles Reitzel had no will and his probate estate was done through an Administration process—the probate estate of Charles Reitzel also reveals no specific mention of the Property. A review of the Town’s records, including contemporaneous handwritten notes in paperwork kept with copies of the Town Deed and purchase and sales agreement, explicitly acknowledge that no title insurance was being purchased as there was “no clear title.”

The extensive research conducted by the Tax Assessor as a part of this endeavor reveals that in September 1930, an Adoph F. Reitzel conveyed the Property to Charles W. Reitzel (the “ROW Deed”), stating in relevant part:

“Restrictions: This land Is not to be used for any other purpose than a private right of way from the highway to the sea and return, and the persons named shall have the right to pass over It: Charles W. Rietzel, Rose H. Rietzel and Adolph F. Rietzel, their heirs, assigns, tenants and other persons to whom they may convey any land now possessed by them on Charlestown Beach in said Town of Charlestown.” (emphasis added).

Further research conducted by the Tax Assessor reveals that Charles W. Rietzel (“CWR”), Rose H. Rietzel (“RHR”) and Adolph F. Rietzel (“AFR”) owned various properties in the Town at the time of and prior to the conveyance in the ROW Deed. The right to use the Property was deeded to various other assigns and heirs by CWR, RHR and AFR, leading to at least seven other, current property owners with rights to use the Property.

Given all of what has been able to be ascertained about the Property, the Town’s ability to exercise any rights with respect to the Property are limited by the rights of others. In practical terms, this means that the Town cannot use the Property for public access to the beach, cannot put signage or fencing on the Property, nor occupy it in such a manner as to impede the rights of the other co-owners in the Property. The Town cannot expand its use of the Property, such as allowing public access to the beach, without the consent of all other co-owners. The Town also has obligations to the other co-owners, which may include paying a portion of taxes, insurance, and maintenance fees, and ensuring that their actions do not damage the Property or interfere with the rights of the other owners. Major alterations to the Property, such as construction or structural changes, typically require the consent of all co-owners. Lastly, in the event of disputes regarding the use or maintenance of the Property, legal action between all owners may be required.

I’ll be in attendance at the March 10, 2025 Town Council meeting to answer any questions that the Council may have on this matter.”


The banner image is a map showing the narrow lot 19 as all red without yellow shading along with lots owned by the town along Charlestown Beach in yellow shading.

Photo of Bonnie Van Slyke
Bonnie Van Slyke

Bonnie Van Slyke, the author of this post, was a member of the Charlestown Town Council from 2014 to 2022. She was the Town Council Liaison to the Planning Commission, Parks and Recreation Commission, and Senior Citizens Commission. She is a former officer and member of the Board of Directors of the Frosty Drew Observatory & Science Center, a former Chair of the Zoning Board of Appeals in Harvard, MA and a former member of the Board of Trustees of the Harvard Conservation Trust. Bonnie is a freelance copy editor, technical writer, and publications specialist. You can learn more about Bonnie on her profile page.