Can citizen plaintiffs in federal court sue the same violator for the same water pollution violation against which the U.S Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) or state agency is taking or has taken administrative enforcement?
An interesting, important and relatively rare decision from the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court is about regulatory taking (yes, Virginia, there is a valid claim for taking) and impairment of contract (no, sorry, there is no valid claim).
In the case of Shurtleff v. City of Boston, 596 US ___ (May 2, 2022), the U.S. Supreme Court held that the City of Boston’s flag-raising program did not constitute government speech. Consequently, the City’s refusal to allow the petitioners to fly their flag because of its religious viewpoint violated the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment to the US Constitution. Let’s see how this regulatory analysis works.
The City of Austin, Texas regulates signs that advertise things not located on the same premises as the sign, and signs directing readers to offsite locations, all known as “off-premises signs.” The City’s sign code prohibited construction of new off-premises signs, but gave existing signs vested rights and treated on-premises signs liberally.
The Appeals Court in 2016 had taught the lesson well, but many boards, attorneys and clients apparently missed that class, so the Supreme Judicial Court has instructed us again, this time in a masterclass.
Tracer Lane II Realty, LLC v. City of Waltham, decided by the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court on June 2, 2022, was eagerly awaited by municipalities and solar project sponsors alike. The citation is Tracer Lane II Realty, LLC v. City of Waltham, No. SJC-13195 (Mass. Jun. 2, 2022). Real estate, environmental and energy attorneys and their clients take note.
“Forever chemicals”—which include polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS), perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA), and perfluorooctanoic sulfonic acid (PFOS)—are found in hundreds of everyday products. Human bodies and the natural environment are incapable of breaking these chemicals down.
Local wetlands bylaw (or ordinance) jurisdiction over projects in and near resource areas depends on Conservation Commission compliance with the 21-day deadlines for commencing public hearings and issuing decisions on Notices of Intent (NOI). Indeed, you may safely regard those timing provisions in the state Wetlands Protection Act (the Act) as binding on the Commission, with failure to meet them potentially fatal to any decision the Commission may render.
A legal doctrine established prior to Article 97 protects public lands dedicated to a public use from being used for other purposes without legislative authorization, meaning a bill in the General Court passed by majority vote. This is the doctrine of Prior Public Use. Although it pre-dates Article 97, the Prior Public Use doctrine continues to serve as a kind of traditional backup to Article 97 for public land dedicated to a public use.
Takings jurisprudence requires that courts know the extent of a regulation’s interference with property rights prior to making any adjudication on its validity. Williamson County Regional Planning Commission v. Hamilton Bank, 473 U.S. 172 (1985)
Property owners lack legal authority to use private litigation to enforce their public trust rights. Only the Commonwealth may enforce public trust rights in Commonwealth tidelands and other waterfront areas.
Governor Baker signed the Housing Choice Act of 2020, Chapter 358 of the Acts of 2020 (the “Housing Choice Act”) on January 14, 2021, as an emergency law, which made it effective immediately. It made significant procedural and substantive changes to the Massachusetts Zoning Act (Chapter 40A) and Smart Growth Districts (Chapter 40R), largely to facilitate multi-family housing near transportation facilities.
McGregor Legere & Stevens, PC is very pleased to announce that Nathaniel Stevens, Esq. has been named Partner of the firm.. We have elected to retain a shorter version of our firm name, McGregor Legere & Stevens, PC for the sake of simplicity. Thank you Nathaniel for your many years of excellent work!
We remind ourselves of the seminal decision in Mahajan v. DEP, 464 Mass. 604 (2013) – in which the Supreme Judicial Court (SJC) reversed and remanded a Superior Court decision that Article 97 applied to Long Wharf in Boston – in light of the SJC’s more recent ruling in Smith v. City of Westfield, 478 Mass. 49 (2017).
On November 22, 2021, the United States Supreme Court issued a ruling on whether Tennessee is liable for damages and other relief related to the pumping of groundwater by the City of Memphis from the Middle Claiborne Aquifer which lies beneath eight states. The Supreme Court ruled in a precedent setting opinion that the waters of the Middle Claiborne Aquifer are subject to the judicial remedy of equitable apportionment and that Mississippi’s complaint is dismissed without leave to amend.
In a recent decision with far-reaching implications for owners of contaminated property, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA, often referred to as the federal Superfund law) does not preclude claims under state laws for further cleanup of contaminated sites.
In 2015 we won on behalf of client Scotty Thyng a million-dollar verdict in Norfolk Superior Court (Civil Action No. 2010-01449) against officials of the City of Quincy.
There was no shortage of important 2020 developments in federal, state and local environmental law, despite Covid-19. This MCLE annual offering, co-chaired by firm founder Gregor McGregor, Esq. and former MassDEP counsel Pamela Harvey, Esq, features well-known speakers.
The Firm’s newest PowerPoint updating wetlands and water law for those who are involved with applications, plans, permits and enforcement by Conservation Commissions is available to readers of this site. Gregor McGregor presented it to the Massachusetts Society of Municipal Conservation Professionals in a luncheon webcast January 27, 2021.
Three selected 2020 summary decisions of the Massachusetts Appeals Court illustrate, in short and sweet opinions, the implications of settlement negotiations by emails, tactical moves while challenging a local board’s decision, the ins and outs of getting permit extensions, what happens in court review of a tribunal’s decision, and how a well-maintained document record, well-run deliberation, and well-written decision can determine who wins or loses and why.
In its August 10, 2020, decision in the case of Wellesley Conservation Council, Inc. v. Pereira (AC 19-P-753), the Massachusetts Appeals Court addressed the scope of enforcement options available to the holder of a Conservation Restriction (CR), in particular whether injunctive relief (like restoration and replanting) is the holder’s sole remedy for violations of the CR’s terms, or does it include money damages, too. The answer is yes to damages.
The decision of the Appeals Court in Henry W. Comstock, Jr., Trustee and another v. Zoning Board of Appeals of Gloucester and others, authored by Justice James Milkey, illustrates the strong protections afforded by G.L. c. 40 A, section 6 to owners of single- or two-family preexisting nonconforming residences who want to renovate their residences. They are protected by significant obstacles to neighbor opponents of such projects on account of minor issues.
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.