A dispute over chopped down trees at the Edgartown home of a Goldman Sachs executive has been logged with the Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection.
Homeowners John and Amanda Waldron have asked the state agency to issue a superseding order on their application to revegetate their $31.6 million Bayside South property on Katama Bay. Mr. Waldron, the president and COO of the investment bank, and his wife were issued daily fines last year by the Edgartown conservation commission for illegally cutting down nearly 20 trees in a protected area.
The Waldrons sent the DEP a request for the new order in March, and since then the couple and the town have been filing documents with the state to back up their perspectives. DEP environmental analyst Whitney McClees walked the property on Wednesday, and heard from the Waldrons’ representatives and town staff.
At the heart of the dispute is the plan the Waldrons submitted to the Edgartown conservation commission in the wake of the $300 daily fines for the mostly cedar trees that the town says were cut down in a protected wetlands area.
The commission voted in October to levy the fines until the Waldrons submitted a replanting plan. The Waldrons sent an application to the town in January, which the couple claims was not accepted by the town conservation agent because the agent said the couple also needed to get approval from the Martha’s Vineyard Commission and other entities first.
The Waldrons claim that because the town hasn’t acted in a timely manner on the application, the DEP should rule on it instead.
“The Commission has neither considered the application nor scheduled a public hearing,” the couple’s environmental consultant Scott Morrison wrote in a filing with the DEP. “Accordingly, the Applicants are compelled to file this appeal and request MassDEP to issue a [superseding order of conditions] authorizing the restoration activities that are proposed in the [notice of intent] in response to the Commission’s Enforcement Order.”
The town let the Waldrons know that the plan was incomplete, in part, because it didn’t address the illegally chopped trees, according to documents provided by the DEP.
According to one of consultants for the Waldrons, red cedars, pitch pines and black cherries were cut down at property. But instead of proposing to plant new trees, the Waldrons suggested planting 45 shrubs at the property as part of the new plan.
They also promised herbicide applications on invasive plants once a year as part of the mitigation efforts to make up for the felled trees.
The conservation commission was disappointed that the Waldrons’ new plan only included shrubs when it asked for the trees to be replaced in kind and in the same general area. The town contends that the Waldrons failed to correct the violations, and the couple are now asking the DEP to allow them to sidestep the conservation commission.
“It largely ignores the ConCom Enforcement Order and fails to include a plan to restore the felled trees,” the conservation commission’s attorney Zeb Landsman wrote in an April 8 letter to the DEP. “Instead, it seeks permission for certain shrub plantings and a ‘modification of the management’ of the area.”
Edgartown conservation agent Kara Shemeth reinforced that point during the walk through of the property on Wednesday.
“The enforcement order states that the restoration of the site is to preexisting conditions,” she said. “So that’s I think where we run into trouble, because that is not preexisting conditions.”
In response, the Waldrons’ attorney argued that the town should have held a hearing on the proposal from the couple, whether the commission was in favor of the plan or not.
“While it seems that the Commission may not like the proposal, and may have been inclined to disapprove it, the right way to do that would have been to timely convene a public hearing and timely issue a denial decision,” wrote attorney Peter A. Alpert. “It did neither, and now is trying to ‘dodge’ the consequences of its inaction by claiming that its demands should have been satisfied in unspecified other ways.”
Ms. McClees with the DEP said the state is not technically considering the town’s enforcement order to replace the trees. Only the request to look at the new application is on the DEP’s plate.
“Whatever happens under the enforcement order is out of the purview of the DEP,” she said. “We are looking simply at the notice of intent and compliance with the Wetlands Protection Act.”
When the commission set the fines in October 2025, some members of the commission said they were insulted that the Waldrons cut down the trees despite being told not to by the commission. The trees were in a fragile area and provided habitat to several species.
“Everything in the buffer zone has been removed with the exception of one oak tree,” commissioner Geoff Kontje, said at the time. “And you can’t make the argument that the owners were not aware of what they were doing….This is an intentional and willful disregard for what we required them to do in writing.”
The town first raised the issue when the conservation agent noticed last April that the trees standing between the 15,000 square-foot home and the bay were removed.
The Waldrons purchased the property in 2020 for $11.2 million and built the existing home in 2022.
This article appears in May 1, 2026.
Who cut the trees? It’s obvious they didn’t do it themselves. They hired a company and companies are very well-versed and now what they are supposed to do and not supposed to do. The public needs to know and the answer it did. This should be known. This is as much a vendor problem as a homeowner problem.
Just so, Public, you hit the nail on the head. This has occurred in several spots around the island. Takes two to tango.
Logged? (sorry)
Its time for fines to be proportional to property value.
Requesting that the article be edited to clarify the various references to “commission.” ConCom? MVC? Something else? Thank you.
Was the, alleged, raized verdure a natural spectacle of the area? Or, per chance,had they been entrenched in their biome by some previous squire?
Can some please provide the Gazette with a proofreader??? Please or do I need to ‘log’ a complaint?
They should follow the commission. The board works in the best interest of the environment. The trees are of great value and today so many forget how much an adult tree provides. I think the property owner should offer to do a
public service task such as planting more trees around the island and it would show you can be a good islander
That house is a meandering monstrosity. Spent countless afternoons in Katama and laughed at some of the other McMansions built on the water, this place makes some of them seam quaint.
Glad they capped the square footage limit to prevent more of these from being built.
Make them put the trees back. We live in a litigious society surrounded by people who have more dollars then sense and couldn’t care less about natives. Kara stick to your guns and make them pay.
And how much is being spent on attorney and consulting fees….who the heck is in charge here. Whomever made the rule should also have clearly stated exactly how it will be enforced and resolved. This shouldn’t be complicated, the public is a prisoner to a broken system. Is it any wonder it’s almost impossible to get anything done and that if you finely get to do something it costs a fortune. This entire system is dysfunctional and I can’t tell who it’s benefiting other than the attorneys and consultants.
Who cares that the homeowner is an executive at Goldman Sacs? Why is that relevant?
what a waste! time. energy. emotions. certainly, the homeowner and the contractor knew better. this is the act of a corporate mindset that lives by the motto; “better to ask for forgiveness than permission”. for homeowners with means such as these, whom at times I am ashamed to say I have worked for, attorneys, consultants, and contractors are dispensable – fines are meaningless, conscience is nowhere to be found. let’s be logical, simple, and serious, no further dithering. REPLACE THE TREES. if the homeowner’s view of the water is inadequate to them they can move, perhaps they will get a more enlightened design on a second try.
It has always mystified me why people buy property somewhere and immediately try to change it. I see this around the country, in various areas, and I cannot wrap my head around it.