He joined The Board when the MACC was a fledgling organization of a few local commissions, now grown to a be a respected leader in education and advocacy on wetlands, water, wildlife, and open space in the Commonwealth.

Mr. McGregor researched and presented archival photographs, news articles, published profiles, and unfortunately a few obituaries about the “Giants on Whose Shoulders We Stand” which was his keynote theme.

These are the people who were the giants in the history of state wetlands protection laws, conservation commissions, MACC, and our local Home Rule environmental bylaws and ordinances.

Those honored with their photos and biographies included Representative John Dolan, sponsor in 1957 of the original Conservation Commission Act; Senator Allan Jones, sponsor in 1963 of the original Coastal Wetlands Protection Act; and Senator                 Frank Hatch, sponsor in 1965 of the original Inland Wetlands Protection Act.

These two seminal laws (known all this time as the Jones Act and the Hatch Act) were combined, codified and modernized by the 1972 Wetlands Protection Act, G.L.c.131, s. 40.

Also pictured in Mr. McGregor’s PowerPoint are Stuart DeBard, founder of MACC in 1961; Dr. Norton Nickerson, scientific advocate for the 1972 Act; Nancy Anderson, principal organizer for the Act; and Attorney General Bob Quinn, whose newly created Environmental Protection Division assisted the Legislature in drafting the Act.

Also featured are Sandra Dawson, Esq. and Dr. Sally Zielinski, who were main movers and shakers in advancing science, policy and laws for wetlands protection and open space preservation.

Dawson and Zielinski were co-authors of the MACC Handbook for Conservation Commissions, which has become the “bible” for implementing and enforcing wetlands laws, acquiring and managing open space, and the research and educational responsibilities of commissions.

Other legislators pictured were Senator Bob Wetmore, principal sponsor of Article 97 of the Amendments to the Massachusetts Constitution, which we voters put on the books in 1972; Senator Carol Amick, sponsor of the 1987 Wildlife Habitat amendment to the Act; Senator then Secretary of the EOEEA Bob Durand, sponsor of the 1997 Rivers Protection amendment to the Act; and Senator Pam Resor, originator of the Public Lands Preservation Act (PLPA) to codify Article 97 procedures and standards, finally enacted as the 2022 Open Space Act.

Mr. McGregor paid tribute to the principal authors of the 1978 coastal wetlands protection regulations, MassDEP General Counsel Tom Powers, Esq.; 1983 inland regulations, MassDEP Counsel Carl Dierker; and 1997 Rivers Protection regulations, MassDEP Counsel Pam Harvey.

He created a category of important non-lawyer lawyers, key players in advocacy and education outside and inside MassDEP and EEA. There are Christy Foote-Smith, George Wislocki, Heidi Ricci, Freddie Fawcett, and too many others to name.

Mr. McGregor recognized the importance of the roles of professional administrators and scientists in the Massachusetts Society of Municipal Conservation Professionals (MSMCP) created in 1986 and the Massachusetts Society of Wetland Scientists created in 1991.

His keynote closed with lists of the MACC Presidents 1961-2025, Executive Directors 1980-present, especially our current Dot McGlincy, and of course photos of the MACC staff and volunteers at work and play.

You may enjoy the Slideshow in our website’s Reading Room >>

 

He also will present his popular annual Environmental Law Update workshop, while associate attorney Caroline E. Smith will present (with Brandon Faneuf, PWS) their workshop on ticketing under General Laws .c. 40, Section 21D. This is the enforcement tool known as Non-Criminal Dispositions.

Who: 800 individuals, including members of Conservation Commissions, municipal and state staff and officials, engineers and consultants, lawyers, non-profit organizations, and others will be in attendance at the AEC.

What: The AEC offers a full day of four tracks of workshops, lunch, coffee breaks, exhibit hall, student poster competition, book sale, business session, and lots of networking.

When: Saturday, March 1, 2025. 8:00 am - 4:30 pm.

Where: The College of the Holy Cross, Hogan Campus Center: 1 College St., Worcester, MA, 01610

Click to Register >>

Speakers:

Gregor I. McGregor, Esq. is an environmental attorney and founder of the Boston law firm, McGregor Legere & Stevens PC. His court cases, including several for MACC as amicus curiae, have created numerous legal precedents in the environmental realm. He was president of MACC twice. In 2020, Greg received MACC’s Long-Time Environmental Service Award. This year, upon his retirement from the Board of Directors after 50 years, he is the keynoter.

Caroline E. Smith, Esq. is an environmental attorney of the Boston law firm, McGregor Legere & Stevens PC. She has experience in Massachusetts courts and before local and state agencies, boards, and commissions, helping clients with a range of environmental, land use, and real estate issues including zoning, subdivisions, state and local enforcement actions, wetlands permitting and appeals, Article 97, stormwater, and Chapter 91 Licenses. Ms. Smith is a member of the Medford Conservation Commission.

 

The date is March 2, 2024 at Holy Cross College. Mr. McGregor and Ms. Grzenda say It will be fast paced, focused on nuts and bolts, and painfully practical.

Conservation agents and Conservation Commission members have limitless questions on so many subjects and need straight answers and useful tips.

Mr. McGregor and Ms. Grzenda say they are open to any “burning questions relating to wetlands, laws, procedures, meetings, powers, enforcement, financial or personnel issues, politics, practices, needs, and problems that plague Conservation Commissions.” Based on their prior presentations, the audience can expect responses to be brief and to the point. The MACC is promoting this workshop as a place to obtain “off-the-record legal information and reliable practical direction of the sort you get on the MACC Help Line without having to write it down or wait for a reply!”

Speakers:

Michele Grzenda is the Conservation Director for the Town of Lincoln where she blends the fields of environmental regulation, open space protection, and land management. Having worked for three different Conservation Commissions over the last 20 years, she enjoys sharing the tools and tricks to running an efficient conservation office and communicating effectively with commission members, applicants, residents, and wetland violators. Ms. Grzenda is a Director of the Massachusetts Society of Municipal Conservation Professionals, Chair of Sudbury Valley Trustee’s Stewardship Committee, Steering Committee member for Women on the Land, a former Officer of MACC, and a former North Attleboro Conservation Commission member.

Mr. McGregor is founder of our firm where he and our partners and associates handle all manner of environmental law, land use, real estate, energy, and litigation matters. His court cases, including several for landowners, businesses, municipalities, and MACC as amicus curiae, have created numerous legal precedents in the environmental realm including wetlands, floodplains, wildlife, the Taking Doctrine, and the Home Rule powers (and limits) of cities and towns. For 18 years Mr. McGregor was a member or chair of the Wellesley Natural Resources Commission (NRC), which is the first and only elected conservation commission. He has been president of MACC twice. In 2020, he received MACC’s Long-Time Environmental Service Award.

 

Greg thanked MACC for the chance to “do good” for Massachusetts wetlands, waters and wildlife for almost 45 years.

He was flanked by two of his most cherished clients, Phyllis and Gerry Ingersoll, who with their mother Hope Ingersoll and Greg’s firm, in a precedent-setting NEPA case in Federal Court, saved Grazing Fields Farm, the last large working farm on Cape Cod, from the extension of Route 25 (now I-495), which now circumvents that portion of Buzzards Bay on its way to the Bourne Bridge.

The award was presented by Greg’s good friend Ingeborg Hegeman, herself a long-time wetland advocate, environmental scientist, conservation commissioner, corporate exemplar, and MACC past president, who added light touches to an otherwise serious occasion.

The text (excerpted and revised) reads as follows:

Greg is an active member of the environmental community: one who gets results, promotes new leaders, and reaches out to everyone. He has provided tremendous value to environmental law, MACC, Conservation Commissions and many organizations.

Greg has practiced environmental law for more than four decades. His court cases have impacted multiple areas of law and regulation, including NEPA, MEPA, wetland and floodplain protection, hazardous waste, tax exemptions for land conservation, open space preservation, and Home Rule wetland protection by cities and towns.

Before Greg entered private practice, he was an Assistant Attorney General in Massachusetts and the first chief of the Attorney General’s Division of Environmental Protection. In that capacity, he advised and represented the Commonwealth during the formative years of Massachusetts environmental statutes, agencies, regulations, enforcement, and litigation.

One of his proudest accomplishments was helping to author the bill to codify the earlier 1963 Hatch Act and 1965 Jones Act into the 1972 Wetlands Protection Act that we have come to know and love. In 1975, he left the AG’s Office and started his own law firm in Boston, McGregor & Associates, now McGregor & Legere.

Over the years, Greg has taught and mentored many law students, young lawyers, and land use planners who have gone on to take prominent roles in environmental protection working at MassDEP, EOEEA, US EPA, cities and towns, environmental consulting and engineering firms, and local and regional non-profit organizations.

Greg successfully represented the Town of Dennis in one of the seminal cases establishing the right of a city or town in Massachusetts to have a non-zoning wetlands protection bylaw under its “Home Rule Authority” –a doctrine many have heard Greg cite many times over the years. This seminal case is Lovequist v. Conservation Commission of Town of Dennis, 379 Mass. 7 (1979).

Through his professional work, Greg was involved in two other seminal cases that clarify and expand what parklands are protected by Article 97 of the Amendments to the Massachusetts Constitution. Those cases are Mahajan v. DEP, 464 Mass. 604 (2013) and Smith v. City of Westfield, 478 Mass. 49 (2017).

Greg has been generous in his pro bono work for MACC, providing his firm’s resources to prepare at no or minimal cost to MACC “friend of the court” (amici curiae) briefs to the Massachusetts appellate courts. These legal memoranda assist the Supreme Judicial Court or Appeals Court consider the important environmental implications of the issues before them while arguing for an environmentally-friendly outcome.

Greg has contributed to several editions of MACC’s Environmental Handbook, helped to revise our popular model wetlands protection bylaw over the decades, and is the editor of the two-volume Massachusetts Environmental Law, published by Massachusetts Continuing Legal Education, Inc. (MCLE), which has recognized Greg with its Scholar-Mentor Award.

In addition to his professional achievements and contributions to the protection of wetlands and waterways, Greg has maintained a respectful and gracious demeanor. He extends friendships and keeps friends. His colleagues agree that it’s not Greg’s specific individual accomplishments that make him so special, it’s his deep dedication and sharing of that commitment, with a witty style, that is so exceptional and worthy of recognition.

That is the upshot of a recent Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court ("SJC") ruling that a group of ten citizens opposing a project proposed in the Middlesex Fells Reservation (the "Reservation") have the right to a trial to determine whether the project's proponents (Fellsway Development, LLC ("Fellsway") and the state Department of Conservation and Recreation ("DCR")) illegally segmented the project to avoid review under MEPA.

The case is known as Ten Persons of the Commonwealth v. Fellsway Development, LLC, 460 Mass. 366 (2011). The SJC decision answered the oft-debated question whether and to what extent citizen groups have the right to sue project sponsors to challenge MEPA decisions from the Secretary of the Executive Office of Energy and Environmental Affairs ("Secretary" and "EOEEA").

MACC submitted a friend of the court brief, called a Brief Amicus Curiae, in support of the ten-citizen group. The brief was authored by attorneys Gregor McGregor and Luke Legere of McGregor & Legere, P.C., and successfully argued that the citizen group's appeal should be allowed to proceed.

The ruling also has implications for public-private mitigation agreements and reviewability of EOEEA MEPA decisions generally.

The Reservation is 2,575 acres of wooded parklands and historic parkways, controlled by DCR. Fellsway purchased an approximately forty-acre private parcel within the Reservation in 2000, which most recently had accommodated a hospital. Fellsway introduced several alternative proposals for the site, which has access off of a four-lane parkway running through the Reservation.

Fellsway in 2000 submitted an Environmental Notification Form ("ENF") under MEPA for its first proposal. The Secretary determined that the redevelopment fell within the jurisdiction of MEPA (due to the state permits that it would require, including a permit from DCR for road construction necessitated by the estimated 8,920 additional vehicle trips per day that the project would create). The Secretary ordered the mandatory filing of an Environmental Impact Report ("EIR").

Fellsway in 2005 filed a Notice of Project Change under MEPA. Although the project had changed, it would still require permits from DCR to construct roadway alterations. The Secretary ordered a Supplemental Final Environmental Impact Report ("SFEIR").

Fellsway in 2007 again revised the project to, among other things, eliminate all proposed alterations of the parkway. Fellsway argued, therefore, that it did not require any permits to proceed (because DCR regulations required a permit only for direct physical roadway alteration).

DCR responded to the Secretary that, regardless whether Fellsway needed a DCR permit, traffic mitigation construction on the parkway was necessary to prevent "public safety risks directly posed by development of the project." In other words, if Fellsway would not perform the road improvements itself, DCR would be forced to do the work. The Secretary concluded that the project still was within MEPA jurisdiction and mandated that the developers prepare an SFEIR.

Fellsway filed suit seeking a declaration that MEPA jurisdiction was not triggered by its latest project iteration. Ultimately, however, DCR and Fellsway entered into a memorandum of understanding ("MOU") to settle their differences.

Under the Fellsway-DCR MOU, Fellsway pledged to pay $1.8 million into an escrow account to be used by DCR, within three years, to undertake roadway improvements within the Reservation. In exchange, DCR would issue a declaration that the project required no permit or financial assistance from DCR.

The MOU was contingent on securing an advisory opinion from the EOEEA Secretary that the project was not subject to MEPA jurisdiction. This the Secretary issued.

Specifically, the Secretary concluded that the project successfully avoided state permitting requirements or indirect financial subsidies, and was not subject to MEPA jurisdiction if Fellsway executed and performed under the MOU. The Secretary decided that DCR's roadway improvements would require review under MEPA, but that the MOU did not violate the anti-segmentation provisions of the MEPA regulations as Fellsway's project and DCR's roadway improvements did not comprise a "common plan."

The citizen plaintiffs filed a complaint in the Superior Court to enjoin project construction and invalidate the Secretary's advisory opinion. Their complaint alleged that the project would cause damage to the environment in violation of MEPA. It sought declaratory judgment and injunctive relief under the Citizen Suit Statute, G.L. c. 214, §7A.

The Citizen Suit Statute confers standing on ten Massachusetts citizens, and/or any municipality, to sue to enforce state and local laws intended to prevent damage to the environment. The Superior Court dismissed the case for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted.

On appeal, the SJC decided that the citizens' case against the project proponent and DCR had been improperly dismissed by the Superior Court.  In this respect, the lower court was reversed and the case remanded for trial under the Citizen Suit Statute to enforce MEPA.

A key ruling is that the DCR remains as a defendant in the suit. The MOU, by which DCR agreed to accept a private financial contribution in exchange for performing road improvements to mitigate the project's impacts, was enough to qualify DCR as a project "proponent" under MEPA.

While ordering trial for alleged illegal "segmentation," the SJC decision, based on prior decisions, does deny the plaintiffs' efforts to use the Citizen Suit Statute or Declaratory Judgment Statute to sue the Secretary. In other words, the Superior Court properly had dismissed the claims against the Secretary for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Thus, as commonly understood for many years, it remains nearly impossible to challenge the EOEEA directly for a MEPA decision that a project does not require an EIR.

For conservation commissions, this case affirms and illustrates the importance of taking an active role in the MEPA process. Meaningful public participation is one of the central tenets of MEPA, and is integral to successful protection of wetlands and water supply and resources.

Where a proposed project with potentially harmful environmental impacts does not trigger conservation commission review under the state Wetlands Protection Act or a Home Rule wetlands ordinance or bylaw, the MEPA process may provide the only meaningful review of environmental impacts.

Interested commission members must watch the MEPA process closely, from the very beginning through to the end, to ensure project proponents are made to prepare and publish a proper ENF or Draft and Final EIR. If not, this ruling means that ten Massachusetts citizens, or any city or town, may sue to enforce MEPA.