Attorney Blog

New Developments in Environmental Law

Can a Conservation Commission Approve a Project Under the State Wetlands Act But Disapprove It Under a Local Bylaw? Featured

Written by

A commonly asked question and a conundrum for many is whether and how a conservation commission can approve a project under the state Wetlands Protection Act, G.L. c. 131, § 40 (the “WPA” or “Act”), while at the same time disapprove the project under a local wetlands protection bylaw or ordinance.

This can happen in the 212 of the 351 municipalities in Massachusetts who have Home Rule wetlands protection bylaws (towns) or ordinance (cities). This means more than half of the commissions across the state are simultaneously administering two wetlands permit programs. That is the source of the answer.

A commission has legal authority to approve a project under the state Act, while denying it under a local wetlands bylaw (or theoretically vice versa). The reason is that the state Act and local law are two separate legal regimens. The commission is administering two distinct but parallel permit programs.

An effective wetlands bylaw (and implementing regulations) to be legally valid must in some aspects be more stringent than the WPA and MassDEP’s Wetlands Protection Act Regulations at 310 CMR 10.00 (the “DEP Regulations”). For instance, instead of the DEP’s jurisdiction over certain sized ponds or types of streams, a bylaw may require permits for work affecting smaller water bodies or all streams.

Or instead of DEP’s requirement for flood plain work providing 1:1 compensatory flood storage compensation or for wetland work of 1:1 Bordering Vegetated Wetland (“BVW”) replication, a local bylaw might require 2:1 compensatory flood storage or 2:1 BVW replication. Or a local bylaw may limit the privilege of filling a BVW to 2,500 square feet instead of the 5,000 square feet allowed in the DEP Regulations.

Using this legal opportunity to be stricter than the Act, the usual bylaw will provide that it protects additional interests beyond the eight listed in the WPA. For example, a wetlands bylaw could protect wildlife (not just wildlife habitat), regulate erosion and sedimentation control, protect recreation values, or even consider aesthetics.

Of course, to be effective, a proper local wetlands program will have regulations promulgated by the commission that further implements these expanded legal interests, Resource Areas, submittal requirements, design specifications, and performance standards.

Often an effective wetlands bylaw will cover more natural areas that the Act. Commonly such bylaws treat the state Buffer Zone as its own Resource Area, that is protectable in its own right, and establish setbacks (no structure and no disturbance) within the Buffer Zone. Such a protected area is sometimes called an Adjacent Upland Resource Area.

Some bylaws enlarge this local Buffer Zone or AURA from the state’s 100 feet to 125 or 150 feet. Many bylaws give the commission jurisdiction over isolated wetlands, not just BVWs, or over vernal pools that are located outside the Resource Areas protected by the WPA.

In reviewing a project under these two separate but parallel state and local permit processes, every so often a conservation commission might determine that a project meets the rules under the WPA and DEP Regulations but does not meet the stricter rules under its wetlands bylaw and implementing regulations. For example, if an applicant seeks to fill less than 5,000 square feet of BVW under the state rules (and satisfies the state replication standards), a commission might approve the project under the WPA while denying it under its bylaw if the bylaw limits wetlands filling to 2,500 square feet.

One would expect a well-run commission is to issue separate decisions under the WPA and a local wetlands bylaw when it votes to approve project under the WPA but not under its local bylaw, and of course explain why. The best commissions in such situations issue separate findings and rulings so the applicant or other reader can clearly understand why a project was approved under the WPA and which standards were applied (and what conditions apply), and why a project was disapproved under the local wetlands bylaw and which standards were applied and what evidence in the record supports the decision. Such separate written decisions, which are highly recommended, allow for less confusing appeals, if any are filed, to DEP (under the WPA) or to court (under a local wetlands bylaw).

For a commission to ensure that a disapproval under a local bylaw survives any appeals, it would base its decision on the provisions in its bylaw or regulations that are more stringent than any equivalent standards in the WPA. Otherwise, it risks its decision being pre-empted by DEP’s decision, on appeal there, approving a project in a Superseding Order of Conditions. Or a court could overturn the denial for being arbitrary and capricious or lacking substantial evidence for not citing and discussing the local bylaw and regulations.

This importance is illustrated in the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court decision in the case of City of Boston v. Conservation Commission of Quincy, 490 Mass. 342 (2022). There, the City of Quincy lost its challenge to the Long Island Bridge reconstruction project in Boston Harbor for lack of more specific purposes in its wetlands ordinance, lack of regulations fleshing out these extra purposes, and lack of stated reasons for denial based on those ordinance and regulations’ provisions.

 

Read 153 times
Nathaniel Stevens, Esq.

NATHANIEL STEVENS, Esq. is a Partner of McGregor Legere & Stevens PC. Since being admitted to the Massachusetts Bar in 1996, he has handled a broad range of environmental and land use matters, from administrative law to litigation. He has helped a diversity of clients with environmental issues including permitting, permit appeals, development, contamination, transactions, conservation, real estate restrictions, water supply, water pollution, subdivision control, tidelands licensing, Boston and state zoning, coastal and inland wetlands, stormwater, air pollution, and energy facility siting.

Mr. Stevens’ work includes state court litigation over land use permits and land ownership disputes, liability for property damage, insurance claims for environmental damage, cost-recovery for contamination cleanups, and damage to municipal lands and public natural resources. His permit-related and administrative litigation includes bringing and defending challenges to conservation commission permits for wetlands work, interpreting and enforcing conservation restrictions, and reviewing decisions by the Department of Environmental Protection (“MassDEP”). He handles adjudicatory proceedings in MassDEP, the Division of Administrative Law Appeals (“DALA”), the Energy Facilities Siting Board, and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”).

In addition to litigation, Mr. Stevens has utilized dispute resolution and other problem-solving skills to efficiently and effectively achieve his clients’ goals. This includes working with land owners, land conservation organizations, and municipalities on a variety of permitting, land use, and management issues.

Mr. Stevens has conducted training through the Citizen Planner Training Collaborative (“CPTC”) for Planning Boards and Zoning Boards of Appeals on the Zoning Act and Subdivision Control Law. He has led Massachusetts Association of Conservation Commissions (“MACC”) workshops and training units for conservation commissions on the Wetlands Protection Act, Home Rule, the Open Meeting Law, and the Public Records Law.

Mr. Stevens has written for legal and environmental publications on subjects including wetlands protection law at the local and state level, quorum requirements for local boards and commissions, MassDEP regulatory reforms, Home Rule and preemption, EPA programs, and state Brownfields Law. His articles on changes to the Wetlands Protection Act and to the Permit Extension Act have been published by the Real Estate Bar Association, MACC, and the American Council of Engineering Companies of Massachusetts (“ACEC-MA”).

Mr. Stevens is a member of the American, Massachusetts, and Boston Bar Associations. He served as Co-chair of the Public Policy Committee of the BBA's Real Estate Section.

Mr. Stevens is a member of the Arlington Conservation Commission on which he served as Chair for many years. He served on the Board of Directors of the Arlington Land Trust, Inc., which promotes, raises funds, acquires, and manages conservation land and conservation restrictions within the Town. He served on the Executive Committee and the Board of Directors of the Lake Sunapee Protective Association, a New Hampshire member-supported nonprofit education and research watershed protection organization. He currently serves on the Board of Directors of MACC.

Prior to law school, Mr. Stevens was awarded a John Knauss Sea Grant Fellowship to study national marine policy in Washington, D.C. During and after this national fellowship, he worked on wetlands policy issues in EPA’s Wetlands Division.

Mr. Stevens is a graduate of Vassar College and Suffolk University Law School (cum laude), with a Masters of Science in Natural Resource Policy and Planning from the University of Michigan’s School of Natural Resources. In law school, Mr. Stevens was awarded “Best Brief” in the first-year Moot Court Competition and served as a member and editor on the Suffolk Transnational Law Review where he published an article on hydropower.

View Attorney Steven's Case List >>

 

Across the spectrum of environmental law we offer advice and representation
with practical, results-oriented lawyering.

CONTACT US

Contact Information

Resources