Michael Walsh, representing the Back Beach Neighbors Committee, told the panel the group petitioned both the town and the Massachusetts Department of Transportation asking for safety changes at Granite Street’s intersection with Beach Street and for clarity about who regulates the roadway. Walsh said the petitioners pursued administrative rulemaking channels under chapter 30A and sought an adjudicatory forum used historically for county-road petitions; he said the committee received no substantive acknowledgement and was effectively ignored.
MassDOT counsel Samuel Furr Yang replied that the submission did not invoke the correct statutory authority for a chapter 30A petition for rulemaking, did not identify a draft regulation, and sought an ad hoc closure of a single intersection — relief MassDOT characterizes as discretionary and not necessarily regulatory in nature. MassDOT said it responded informally and had no legal obligation to undertake rulemaking in response to the neighborhood petition.
The petitioners emphasized a broader problem: overlapping or unclear jurisdiction after structural changes in county government, leaving residents unsure whether state, county, or town rules and safety manuals apply. Walsh urged that petitioners be given a formal forum and at least a written response explaining the agency’s reasoning, citing federal and state precedents that agencies should give reasoned answers to rulemaking petitions even if they deny relief. The panel heard argument on statutory construction and administrative-law remedies and took the matter under submission.