Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Environmental Enforcement topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Appeals court asks whether Carver earth‑removal bylaw’s main purpose is environmental protection or public-safety regulation
Summary
In oral argument over a citizen suit, judges questioned whether Carver’s earth‑removal bylaw was enacted with the "major purpose" of preventing damage to the environment under G.L. c.214 §7A and whether ongoing permitted activity could still be challenged under that statute.
A group of Carver residents asked the Appeals Court to allow a citizen suit under G.L. c.214, §7A, arguing that the town’s earth‑removal permits and the committee that approved them have caused widespread environmental damage across multiple sites. The town and the permittee, AD Makepeace Co., urged dismissal.
Margaret Sheehan, counsel for the resident plaintiffs, told the court the bylaw establishes a permitting scheme that specifically identifies environmental features — vegetation, wetlands, recharge areas, groundwater elevations, historical sites and stormwater impacts — and requires detailed site‑plan submissions and restoration plans. She argued that those provisions show the bylaw’s “major purpose” is to prevent or minimize damage to the environment and that large‑scale commercial excavation described in the complaint (clearing trees, stripping topsoil, hauling hundreds of thousands of truckloads) fits the statute’s definition of environmental harm.
Judges tested that framing by asking whether the bylaw is better characterized as an environmental protection law or a public‑safety and land‑use regulation. Justice John Englander asked whether ordinary post‑development problems — a homeowner digging a single hole, for example — would fall within §7A if the statute were read as broadly as plaintiffs urged. Sheehan said the statute contains a de minimis exception and that the bylaw’s scale limits the statute’s reach to large commercial earth removal, not small backyard activity.
AD Makepeace’s counsel, Joseph Pontrelli, told the panel the town’s permitting regime is structured primarily to regulate extraction of natural resources and to set conditions and monitoring for reuse of the land; Pontrelli also pointed to a trial‑court finding from a preliminary injunction phase that plaintiffs had failed to demonstrate “concrete harm.” Town counsel Amy Questle said the Earth Removal Committee investigated complaints, performed site inspections, and concluded monitoring under permits was sufficient; she urged dismissal on procedural and jurisdictional grounds, including claims tied to certiorari limits and statutes of limitations.
The court pressed counsel on two recurring problems: whether a §7A action can proceed where an activity is permitted by local approvals and whether the citizens’ notice letters and the town’s responses started the limitations clock for challenging permits. Justice Maureen Walsh asked whether filing a notice demanding enforcement and waiting a year before suing would be too long; plaintiffs said they repeatedly sought enforcement and the latest demand before suit was March 2022, with the complaint filed in August 2022.
The panel also explored precedents and analogies, including the Beard decision that described large‑scale removal leaving “a desert area” and cases where courts assessed whether a bylaw’s principal aim was environmental protection. Judges indicated they would study the municipal record, the trial court’s earlier factual findings, and statutory interplay before issuing an opinion that would clarify when citizens may sue under §7A despite permits having been issued.
