We successfully defended a Cape Cod coastal homeowner from challenges by his neighbor to his state and local wetlands permits for home expansion on his waterfront lot, in the Town of Falmouth, which has a particularly comprehensive local Home Rule wetlands bylaw and Conservation Commission regulations, on a lot surrounded by wetland Resource Areas.

We successfully defended these permits through an adjudicatory hearing at DEP under the Wetlands Protection Act and in Superior Court and the Appeals Court under the bylaw, which upheld the Town.

We successfully overturned the Chatham Conservation Commission’s denial of a pond management plan proposed by our client, the Fox Run Property Owners, Inc. whose homes abut the privately owned pond suffering from advanced aquatic weed growth.

We prevailed in two separate appeals, winning approval from the DEP under the state Wetlands Protection Act, and settling litigation in Superior Court calling for the Commission’s approval of the project, as had been initially proposed, under Chatham’s Wetlands Protection Bylaw.

Our evidence included state of the art studies and documentation of the pond’s condition, prior management attempts, alternative management techniques, and the chosen combination of mechanical removal, chemical treatment, and conditions for pond restoration. The pond restoration plan is now being implemented successfully.

We successfully resolved enforcement actions taken by the local conservation commission as well as DEP under the Wetlands Protection Act and Chapter 91 against our client cottage owner in Southeastern Massachusetts for a pier allegedly constructed larger than permitted.

We negotiated validation of the pier construction and associated grading, mitigation and restoration of the affected area, reduction in the proposed monetary penalties, and modifications to make the structure stronger to face coastal storms. The matter was successfully resolved.

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."