Eleven years after 5.3 acres of Swifts Beach beachfront property were taken by the town, the debate on its future still hasn't been settled.

While both the town and Swifts Beach residents want to keep the land preserved and free of future development, the way to achieve that goal has yet to be determined.

The Selectmen's meeting room was filled to capacity Monday when members of the Swifts Beach Improvement Association gave a presentation on the land. They asked for support in applying for a conservation restriction on the parcel, with the possible threat of a lawsuit if the town did not comply.  A conservation restriction protects environmentally sensitive land from being developed on, usually by transferring rights for the property to a government on non-profit entity.

In 2003, Town Meeting approved that Selectmen acquire the land at Swifts Beach Road and Wankinco Avenue. The land was taken for "general municipal purposes," and the Board of Selectmen at the time expressed the desire to expand access to the public beach that is adjacent to the land.

The town paid $450,000 to the owner of the property, Barbara Deighton Haupt, which she accepted while reserving her right to challenge the offer. Deighton Haupt subsequently sued, alleging she was inadequately compensated for the land, and was awarded an additional $1.1 million from the town in Community Preservation Act funds in 2007. The payment, however, was seen as controversial at the time.

According to a 2007 Boston Globe article, voters at a Special Town Meeting in Oct. 2007 authorized the use of Community Preservation funds to pay the debt.  Those funds allow municipalities in Massachusetts to adopt a property tax surcharge (which is matched by the state) to be allocated for the preservation of open space and historic buildings as well as for the creation of public housing.

But a Wareham citizens group, Taxpayers for Full Disclosure, said the use was illegal because the land was not initially purchased with Community Preservation funds.

While the citizen group was unable to stop the payment from going through, they did put in place an order to prevent the town Community Preservation Committee from putting a conservation restriction on the deed of the Swifts Beach land.

The town has unsuccessfully sought a nonprofit group or state agency agency that would agree to hold a conservation restriction on the property for an extended period of time.

On Monday, the Swifts Beach Improvement Association presentation was led by SBIA President Bruce Sauvageau. Sauvageau was on the Board of Selectmen from 2003 to 2010.

Sauvageau said the Association and the Wareham Conservation Commission plan to jointly apply to the state for a conservation restriction on the property, because only the state can grant such a restriction.

He cited three Town Meeting votes in his presentation:

• The first vote was in 2003 for the town to accept the land.
• The second was the 2007 Fall Town Meeting; Sauvageau said Article 17 in that warrant, "expressly states said land to be held by the Board of Selectmen for open space and recreational purposes and to authorize the Board of Selectmen to convey a deed restriction to a state approved conservation entity."
• The third vote Sauvageau cited was at the 2010 Spring Town Meeting when voters narrowly rejected a measure to establish a committee to research potential uses and long-term leasing of the property by a vote of 72-69.

"The entire reason for our request is simply this," Sauvageau said. "No Board of Selectmen, past, present or future, has the ethical or moral right to nullify a Town Meeting vote."

"As long as we continue to maintain the property in a manner consistent with that Article 17 vote, 'open space and recreation,' then we're honoring the will of the people," said Town Attorney Richard Bowen. "Should there be a restriction? Yes, in my opinion there should. The question of which group is willing or qualified to hold it is a policy decision."

"That's never going to happen," said Selectman Patrick Tropeano after asking if those present were worried about houses being built on the property. "It's open space for recreation purposes. There's never going to be houses there."

"If it can't be used for anything besides recreation and open space… and it's going to remain like that, what is the ultimate concern about what could be done there?" Tropeano asked.

"I see laws in the United States changing over the years. I don't trust that something can't be done," said SBIA member Jack Bostwick. "But I know when it's under conservation land, it won't be done."

Selectmen did not take any action on the application at the meeting. Selectman Alan Slavin said he plans to speak with Wareham's Community Preservation Committee and get a list of all parties involved in the matter before making any decisions.