Opinion
14-P-1052
03-23-2015
MICHELLE SABER & another v. CONSERVATION COMMISSION OF BEDFORD.
NOTICE: Summary decisions issued by the Appeals Court pursuant to its rule 1:28, as amended by 73 Mass. App. Ct. 1001 (2009), are primarily directed to the parties and, therefore, may not fully address the facts of the case or the panel's decisional rationale. Moreover, such decisions are not circulated to the entire court and, therefore, represent only the views of the panel that decided the case. A summary decision pursuant to rule 1:28 issued after February 25, 2008, may be cited for its persuasive value but, because of the limitations noted above, not as binding precedent. See Chace v. Curran, 71 Mass. App. Ct. 258, 260 n.4 (2008). MEMORANDUM AND ORDER PURSUANT TO RULE 1:28
The department of public works (DPW) of the town of Bedford has proposed to construct an athletic field on a six-acre parcel of town land. Because the project will affect a wetland, the DPW needed to obtain a particular form of approval from the town conservation commission (commission) pursuant to the town's wetlands by-law. After an extensive process, the commission eventually granted the requested approval subject to various conditions (including the undertaking of various mitigation projects). The plaintiffs, who own land that abuts the project site, filed an action in the nature of certiorari to challenge the commission's approval. A Superior Court judge dismissed that action for want of standing. We affirm.
The wetland involved in this case is a so-called "isolated wetland" that is not separately subject to regulation under the Wetlands Protection Act, G. L. c. 131, § 40.
The fact that the plaintiffs are abutters does not provide them automatic standing to bring their certiorari action. Friedman v. Conservation Commn. of Edgartown, 62 Mass. App. Ct. 539, 543-544 (2004). Instead, they must demonstrate a significant injury occurring "within the area of concern of the . . . regulatory scheme." Enos v. Secretary of Envtl. Affairs, 432 Mass. 132, 135 (2000). Many of the concerns the plaintiffs have raised about the project -- such as their fears of trespassers and errant balls on their property -- plainly fall outside those protected by the wetlands by-law and therefore cannot qualify for standing. See Standerwick v. Zoning Bd. of Appeals of Andover, 447 Mass. 20, 30-32 (2006). Although the plaintiffs did express some concerns that do fall within the scope of the by-law (e.g., concerns about "potential runoff and drainage problems"), these were asserted in only conclusory fashion, unsupported by affidavit or by reference to specific facts established in the record. See Butler v. Waltham, 63 Mass. App. Ct. 435, 440-441 (2005) (to show standing, a plaintiff "must provide specific factual support for each of the claims of particularized injury"). The judge correctly ruled that the plaintiffs failed to demonstrate their standing.
Judgment affirmed.
By the Court (Vuono, Milkey & Blake, JJ.),
The panelists are listed in order of seniority.
--------
Clerk Entered: March 23, 2015.