The Appeals Court in Parkview Electronics Trust, LLC v. Conservation Commission of Winchester, 88 Mass. App. Ct. 833 (2016), recently rejected a challenge to the well-established principle that a conservation commission can have regulatory authority under a local wetlands bylaw or ordinance that is independent from, and in addition to, its authority under the state Wetlands Protection Act (“Act”). This is so as long as a commission relies on a provision of its local wetlands law that is more stringent than the Act and complies with the timeframes set forth in the Act. Otherwise a commission risks having its decisions under both state and local laws superseded by MassDEP in an appeal under the Act.
The stated purpose of the MassDEP Regulatory Reform Initiative is to streamline the permitting process and maintain MassDEP's high standards of environmental protection. Following a review over two years, all MassDEP Bureaus changes to take effect soon, if not already.
In an important victory for the state’s vulnerable wildlife species, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court (“SJC”) recently upheld the Massachusetts Endangered Species Act (“MESA”) regulations in all respects. The case, known as Pepin v. Division of Fisheries and Wildlife, 467 Mass. 210 (2014), challenged the procedural and substantive jurisdiction implemented by the state Division of Fisheries and Wildlife (“DFW”) under MESA.
Citizen groups may sue project proponents using the so-called Citizen Suit Statute, G.L. c. 214, §7A, to challenge decisions allowing projects that would allegedly cause damage to the environment in violation of the Massachusetts Environmental Policy Act ("MEPA").
The Massachusetts Appeals Court’s decision in Tremont Redevelopment Corporation v. Conservation Commission of Westwood, 73 Mass. App. Ct. 1127 (2009), provides guidance for municipalities concerned about the limits of Home Rule for local wetland protection ordinances or bylaws. The Court applied the Home Rule Doctrine in light of several prior decisions1 and ruled that the Westwood Conservation Commission’s disapproval of a project under its Wetlands Protection Bylaw was invalid.2
An open-ended waiver of the state Wetlands Protection Act's twenty-one (21) day deadline for issuing a decision after the close of a public hearing is invalid when required as part of a Notice of Intent application package.
The Massachusetts Appeals Court recently decided the question of when the clock begins running to file a court appeal for certiorari review under M.G.L. ch. 249, §4, specifically against a conservation commission that had issued an enforcement order.
The state Appeals Court recently ruled that a Conservation Commission cannot deny work without explicit and objective reasons why the Commission is rejecting the applicant's uncontested evidence. In Pollard v. Conservation Commission of Norfolk, the Massachusetts Appeals Court (the "Appeals Court") said that the Commission, in disbelieving or rejecting uncontradicted evidence, cannot simply say that the applicants' evidence was "not credible" and that the applicants "failed to sustain their burden."
Calculate When Your Permits Expire If Issued Before or During the Covid Emergency: 462 Extra Days?
What the Lifting of the COVID-19 State of Emergency in Massachusetts Will Mean for Boards and Commissions
Legislature Revises Local and Regional Permitting Deadlines as COVID-19 Pandemic Continues
MassDEP and EPA Guidance on Waste Site Cleanups and Compliance during COVID-19 Emergency: Some Flexibility but Important Deadlines and On-Site Obligations Still Apply
Across the spectrum of environmental law we offer advice and representation
with practical, results-oriented lawyering.