The task of finding a solution to the gradual disappearance of the view from the Tashmoo overlook was firmly dropped back in the laps of the selectmen by the town’s conservation commission this week.

The commission told a small group of people concerned about the view that it would not attempt to force the owners of a stand of willow trees, which are progessively obscuring the view, to prune or remove them, because it had no power to do so.

Instead, conservation agent Jane Varkonda told the group — which included one selectman, Tristan Israel — the town should acquire an easement over the land on which the trees stand, so it can remove them.

It now appears likely an article seeking townspeople’s consent will go before either a special town meeting this fall, or next spring’s annual meeting.

Such an article was to have been on the warrant for the last town meeting, but was dropped by selectmen in the hope that the long-standing dispute with the trees’ owners could be otherwise negotiated, either through talks with the owners, the Payette family, or through conservation commission action.

The problem with the Payettes’ trees has been literally a long time growing, and therein lies the problem with doing anything about it now. The trees were planted at the head of Tashmoo back in the 1970s. Tisbury’s wetlands bylaw was not enacted until 1982.

And although the state Wetlands Protection Act (WPA) predated the planting, actions or prosecutions had to be commenced within two years of a breach.

“A WPA enforcement action brought 34 years after the planting is, simply stated, time-barred,” the Payettes’ lawyer wrote to the town last year.

In their comments at Tuesday night’s meeting, members of the conservation commission agreed, in essence, with that position.

The issue was raised with them by longtime Tisbury resident Patricia Carlet, who said the importance of clearing the view was reflected in a 2005 survey by the Martha’s Vineyard Commission which found the overlook to be number two on the list of places Islanders thought should be protected.

She said she had spent more than a year researching “whose purview it is to protect scenic vistas on our Island.”

She cited five Island agencies, including the selectmen, conservation commission, Martha’s Vineyard Land Bank, and Martha’s Vineyard Commission, which stated a purpose to protect such views, and she outlined federal, state, regional and local laws and standards which might apply.

“In May of 2007 I sent all five organizations ... a cover letter, several maps, photographs and documents, all pursuant to restoring and preserving the historic view at Tashmoo overlook,” Ms. Carlet said.

She said she received little feedback, but “being of a rather persistent nature” she decided to go to the conservation commission in person.

But in spite of the arguments put by Ms. Carlet and other supporters, including Mr. Israel, and despite expressions of sympathy from some members, the conservation commission made it clear they thought any action would be fruitless.

“I’ve been doing it 20 years,” said Ms. Varkonda, “and the commonwealth would throw this out in a heartbeat.”

But she at least explained the difficulties. Others were not so accommodating of the complainants.

Margaret Wolontis, the cochairman of the commission, appeared irritated by the whole discussion, and repeatedly tried to end the discussion.

She glibly suggested if they wanted action they should go down and cut the trees in the night, or build a wooden viewing platform at the overlook, so people could see over the trees.

“You know, you’re wasting our time. We have hearings,” she said. “Come on. We can’t do anything.”