Appeals court weighs limits of administrative record in conservation commission wetlands appeal

The Appeals Court heard argument in 24P1201, James Jones v. Town of Barnesville Conservation Commission, over whether the trial court erred by denying plaintiffs’ motion to supplement the administrative record and whether the commission’s order of conditions was supported by substantial evidence.

Jonathan Silverstein, arguing for the appellants, said the administrative record as filed omitted local conservation regulations and other municipal materials that the commission routinely relies on and that courts should be able to consider. Silverstein pointed to topographic plans, FEMA flood maps referenced in the record and contended those materials support a Coastal Bank designation and that the commission’s Order of Conditions failed to address impacts to that resource. He said plaintiffs were pro se before the commission and therefore the failure to cite local regulations below should not bar supplementation on appeal if the underlying record contains the factual materials invoking the regulations.

Counsel for the commission and for intervenors responded that supplementing the administrative record is discretionary and limited to materials actually considered by the commission. Counsel and the town’s engineer described the record as focused on land subject to coastal storm flowage and argued the commission had substantial evidence supporting its order; they said the materials appellants now urge the court to consider either were not submitted to the commission or had been previously considered and resolved in earlier proceedings.

The justices questioned whether the particular regulations appellants cite (local conservation bylaws concerning coastal bank, vernal pools and buffer zones) were actually presented to the commission for determination, and whether previously adjudicated wetland delineations (including a 2016 DEP review referenced in the file) remained controlling or had expired. The panel also discussed the interplay between local regulation (Town of Barnstable bylaws and local regulations cited in the record) and pending state DEP review: DEP review was described as stayed pending the local litigation.

The court took the matter under advisement.

What happens next: the court will decide whether the superior court abused discretion in refusing supplementation and whether the administrative record contained sufficient evidence to require the commission to apply additional resource‑area regulations.