ࡱ > B E A $ bjbj 7< + @
@
( 8 D [ w w | V D $ # H | | 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 @'x / 3 { 0 3 # . # 3 3 # : 0 j " 3 : : : 3 : : : # : : : : : : : : : @
I : COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF ENERGY AND ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS
DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
ONE WINTER STREET, BOSTON, MA 02108 617-292-5500
THE OFFICE OF APPEALS AND DISPUTE RESOLUTION
June 28, 2013
_______________________
In the Matter of Docket Nos. WET-2013-013
File No. 8-618
Gerald and Caroline Hart Braintree
_______________________
RECOMMENDED FINAL DECISION
The Office of Appeals and Dispute Resolution received this appeal filed by Mary Colleary (the Petitioner) of the denial of her request for a Superseding Order of Conditions (SOC) by the Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protections Southeast Regional Office (the Department) under the Massachusetts Wetlands Protection Act, G.L. c. 131, 40 and the Wetlands Regulations, 310 CMR 10.00. The Braintree Conservation Commission had issued an Order of Conditions dated January 24, 2013 to Gerald and Caroline Hart approving work on the Harts property, which abuts property owned by the Washington Commons Condominium Trust. The Petitioner is an owner of a unit in the Washington Commons Condominium Trust and also serves as a Trustee. The Department denied the Petitioners request for an SOC on the grounds that the appeal was not timely, because it had not been filed within ten business days as required by the regulations. 310 CMR 10.05(7)(c).
In the appeal, the Petitioner stated that abutter notice had not been provided as required, and the request for issuance of an SOC had been sent within ten days of constructive notice, upon observation of a bulldozer at the site. The Department requested an order requiring the Petitioner to clarify her party status, as to whether the Petitioner filed the appeal in an individual capacity of a unit owner of the condominium or was acting on behalf of the condominium association. The Department stated that, in its view, if the Petitioner were acting on behalf of the association rather than as a unit owner or as an individual trustee, it would accept the request for action. I issued an Order for More Definite Statement, asking the Petitioner to clarify standing and also held a Pre-Hearing Conference to determine the most expeditious means of resolving this matter. See 310 CMR 1.01(11)(b).
A request for issuance of an SOC by the Department may be filed by any owner of land abutting the land on which the work is to be done, meaning that typically the condominium association rather than a unit owner would be an abutter entitled to request an SOC. 310 CMR 10.05(7)(a)(4) (emphasis added); 310 CMR 10.05(7)(3); see Matter of Holly Management and Supply, Docket No. 98-125, Final Decision (April 9, 1999); Matter of Towermarc Boxborough Limited Partnership, Docket No. 99-014, Final Decision (November 3, 1999). The Petitioner filed a certificate executed by the trustees of Washington Commons Condominium Trust certifying that Mary Colleary as Trustee was authorized to oppose the development project proposed by Gerald and Caroline Hart, including this appeal.
The Department responded that it would accept the request for an SOC based upon the status of the Washington Commons Condominium Trust, Mary Colleary, Trustee as an owner of land abutting the land where the proposed work would be located. The Braintree Conservation Commission and the Petitioner concurred. Remanding the project to the Department for the issuance of an SOC is the customary relief where the Department had declined to issue an SOC and the basis for the denial is misplaced. See, e.g., Matter of Town of Hull, Docket No. 90-168, Final Decision (July 26, 1995) (denial based upon requestor's alleged lack of standing vacated, and request remanded to Departments regional office for the issuance of an SOC); Matter of 29 Hancock St. LLC, Docket No. 2001-030, Final Decision (November 15, 2001) (remand to Department after denial of request for SOC); Matter of Sandra Lepore, Docket No. 2002-208, Final Decision (January 31, 2003)(remand to Department after denial of request for SOC).
Accordingly, the Departments denial of the request for an SOC should be vacated and the matter remanded to the Department for the issuance of an SOC. The Department will review the proposed work in light of the applicable regulations and consider the merits of the Petitioners objections to the project at that time. I recommend that the Commissioner issue a Final Decision dismissing the appeal and remanding the matter to the Southeast Regional Office.
__________________________
Pamela D. Harvey
Presiding Officer
NOTICE- RECOMMENDED FINAL DECISION
This decision is a Recommended Final Decision of the Presiding Officer. It has been transmitted to the Commissioner for his Final Decision in this matter. This decision is therefore not a Final Decision subject to reconsideration under 310 CMR 1.01(14)(e), and may not be
appealed to Superior Court pursuant to M.G.L. c. 30A. The Commissioners Final Decision is subject to rights of reconsideration and court appeal and will contain a notice to that effect.
Because this matter has now been transmitted to the Commissioner, no party shall file a motion to renew or reargue this Recommended Final Decision or any part of it, and no party shall communicate with the Commissioners office regarding this decision unless the Commissioner, in his sole discretion, directs otherwise.
The denial of a request for action by the Department may be appealed. Matter of Duxbury Beach Reservation, Inc., Docket No. 91-135, Final Decision (July 9, 1992), Reconsideration Denied (September 3, 1992).
The Department in its denial of the request for an SOC stated that the Commissions Order was postmarked on January 28, 2013, but the discrepancy is not relevant here.
The Petitioner provided a letter from the town stating that the abutter list erroneously included only one unit owner in the condominium. She observed work at the site on April 3, 2013, well after the expiration of the period to request an SOC. The ten day time limit for the filing of a request may be tolled in limited circumstances, including certain failure of notice to persons entitled to notice. Tolling was not disputed in this matter and the circumstances where tolling may be allowed therefore need not be addressed here.
The Petitioner sought to be restored to the position she would have been in if she had received notice, through a remand to the Braintree Conservation Commission. The Departments regulations, however, allow requests for Department action based on a clear showing that the applicant failed to provide notice as drawn from the most recent tax list from the Assessors Office. 310 CMR 10.05(4)(a)(emphasis added). For that reason, the matter may not be remanded to the Commission.
A unit owner potentially could be aggrieved, but such standing would require a demonstration by the Petitioner that she met the standard for a person aggrieved established in 310 CMR 10.04. 310 CMR 10.05(7)(a)(3).
The parties should be aware that standing differs for an appeal of an SOC, and abutters do not have standing by operation of the regulations. See 310 CMR 10.05(7) (j)2.
PAGE \* MERGEFORMAT 4
Y ? @ I #
_
d
h
k
x
z
Ϳ밥xn h_ 5>* wh hN\ 5>* h_ 5>* h: h_ 5>* h: h_ 5>* wh h]. 5>* \h: h_ 5>* \h_ 5>* \ hm, h_ hF^ h_ 5\ h]. h\V? hgV h_ 5>*\h M h_ 5
h_ CJ h_ h_ OJ QJ hC h_ >* ( Y ! P g
: G $ d `a$ gd* m$ $ d `a$ gd_ $
1 a$gd_ d gd_
$d a$gd_ gd_ gd_ $a$gd_ gd_
{ | } C T U b g h i j k
! ǾǾߵ|siiibiǾs h]. 5>* h_ hT/ 5>* hT/ 5>* aJ j h? 0J 5>* UaJ hT/ 5>* hr 5>* h_ h 5>* h 5>* aJ h\V? 5>* aJ h]. 5>* aJ h? 5>* aJ hN\ 5>* aJ j h 0J 5>* UaJ h_ 5>* aJ h
, h_ 5>* aJ h: h_ 5>* aJ "! 3
K O _ ` c w
Y Z \ r w ! 8 : ; H l ͻͱ͍zsibi h9 5>* h_ h 5>* h 5>* h6o h6o 5aJ hiI 5>* aJ h9 5>* aJ j hiI 0J 5>* U hr 5>* hT/ 5>* h_ hT/ 5>* h~% 5>* aJ h 5>* aJ h_ 5>* aJ hN\ 5>* aJ j hiI 0J 5>* UaJ hT/ 5>* aJ h6o 5>* aJ $ # > @ Q U V X } " 2 E F G I X 꾶zpi] h* h 5>* aJ h 5>* h_ h_ 5>* j h9 0J 5>* U hiI 5>* he Q he Q 5he Q h 5 he Q 5>* h\Nq 5>* h_ h 5>* h\Nq h\Nq 5h\Nq h 5h+E h+E 5 hr 5>* h+E 5>* h6o 5>* h 5>* h_ h 5>* h_ h 56>* $ E G 7 z { } 4 5 6 9 ; > A W Ư~~p~p~~p~^^^~~ #h* h* >*CJ OJ QJ ^J aJ h& CJ OJ QJ ^J aJ h* CJ OJ QJ ^J aJ h* h* CJ OJ QJ ^J aJ #h* ha 5CJ OJ QJ ^J aJ -j h* ha 0J CJ OJ QJ U^J aJ h* ha CJ OJ QJ ^J aJ h* h CJ OJ QJ ^J aJ h* h 5>* aJ h* h 5>* aJ ! : 2 5 6 E G T " Y h w Q ųų{tmt{tf[W h_ h_ h 5>* \ h 5>* h& 5>* h6o 5>* hX/ 5>* h 5>* hX/ 5>* aJ h! 5>* aJ h* h 5>* aJ h* h* 5>* aJ #h& h& >*CJ OJ QJ ^J aJ h& CJ OJ QJ ^J aJ h* CJ OJ QJ ^J aJ h* h* CJ OJ QJ ^J aJ h6o CJ OJ QJ ^J aJ G 5 & ? Q R u v G \ ^
gd_ d gd m$
d `gd m$ gd $a$gd Hh^H`hgd_ m$ gd_ m$ gd_ $ d `a$ gd* m$ d -D M
`gd* m$ Q R t u v ` b ^ _ (! )! >! ! ! " " " " " " #
# # # # z$ xlxl_lxlxl hiI h~% 56>* CJ hiI h~% 5>* CJ h~% 5>* CJ j hX/ h~% 0J 5>* Uh h~% >*h~% j h~% 0J Uh9 h_ h hs~ h h,n h ,h, h 6B* CJ OJ PJ QJ aJ ph )h, h B* CJ OJ PJ QJ aJ ph #hX/ B* CJ OJ PJ QJ aJ ph %
'! (! #
# # # $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $a$ gd $ a$ gdiI z$ }$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ h9 hk mH nH uhd= j hd= Uj hig Uhig h~% ha h~% >* 5
01h:p9 / =!"#$% j 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 v v v v v v v v v 6 6 6 6 6 6 > 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 h H 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 2 0 @ P ` p 2 ( 0 @ P ` p 0 @ P ` p 0 @ P ` p 0 @ P ` p 0 @ P ` p 0 @ P ` p 8 X V ~ OJ PJ QJ _HmH nH sH tH P ` P _ N o r m a l ( CJ OJ PJ QJ ^J _HaJ mH sH tH > @ > _ H e a d i n g 1 $@& a$ 5\d @ d H e a d i n g 2 $$ @& ' 5B*CJ OJ PJ QJ \^J aJ phO D A` D
D e f a u l t P a r a g r a p h F o n t R i R 0 T a b l e N o r m a l 4
l 4 a ( k (
0 N o L i s t R R _ H e a d i n g 1 C h a r 5CJ OJ PJ QJ \^J aJ , O , _ a l
1 a$ 8 >@ 8 _ T i t l e a$
5>*\aJ N !N _
T i t l e C h a r ! 5>*CJ OJ PJ QJ \^J aJ D C@ 2D _ 0 B o d y T e x t I n d e n t
x ^h Z AZ _ 0 B o d y T e x t I n d e n t C h a r CJ OJ PJ QJ ^J aJ 4 @ R4 _ 0 H e a d e r
H$ F aF _ 0 H e a d e r C h a r CJ OJ PJ QJ ^J aJ > @ r> 0
F o o t n o t e T e x t CJ aJ T T 0 F o o t n o t e T e x t C h a r CJ OJ PJ QJ ^J aJ @ &@ @ 0 F o o t n o t e R e f e r e n c e H* f O f * l e - n o r m a l - 3 2 - l e v e l
B*CJ OJ QJ ^J aJ ph : : *
s e a r c h h i t 1
q
\ \ H e a d i n g 2 C h a r ' 5B*CJ OJ PJ QJ \^J aJ phO PK ! [Content_Types].xmlj0Eжr(Iw},-j4 wP-t#bΙ{UTU^hd}㨫)*1P' ^W0)T9<l#$yi} ;~@(Hu* Dנz/0ǰ $ X3aZ,D0j~3߶b~i>3\`?/[G\!-Rk.sԻ..a濭? PK ! ֧ 6 _rels/.relsj0 }Q%v/C/} (h"O
= C?hv=Ʌ%[xp{۵_Pѣ<1H0ORBdJE4b$q_ 6LR7`0̞O,En7Lib/Se е PK ! ky theme/theme/themeManager.xml M
@}w7c(Ebˮ CAǠҟ7՛K
Y,
e.|,H ,lxɴIsQ}#Ր ֵ+!,^$j=GW)E+&
8 PK ! P theme/theme/theme1.xmlYOo6w toc'vuر-Mn iP@I}úama[إ4:l ЯGRX^6؊>$ !)O^rC$y@ /yH*)UDb`}"qۋJחX^)I`nEp)liV[]1M<OP6r=zgbIguSe bORD۫qu gZo~ٺlAplxpT0+[}`j zA V2Fi@qv֬5\|ʜ̭NleXd sjcs7f
W+Ն7` g ȘJj|h(KD-
dXiJ؇(x$( :;˹! I_TS 1?E ??ZBΪmU/ ?~xY'y5g&/ɋ>GMGeD3Vq%'#q$8K )fw 9:ĵ
x}rxwr:\TZaG*y8IjbRc|XŻǿI
u3KGnD 1NIBs
RuK>V.E L+M2#'fi ~V vl{u8z H
* :( W ☕
~JTe\O*tHGHY }KNP*ݾ˦ TѼ9/#A7qZ $*c?qUnwN%Oi4 =3ڗP
1Pm \\9Mؓ2aD];Yt\[x]}Wr|]g-
eW
)6-rC Sj
id DЇAΜIqbJ#x꺃 6k#ASh&ʌt(Q% p%m&]caS l=X\P1Mh9MVdDAaVB[݈fJíP|8 քAV^f
Hn- "d>znNJ ة>b&2vKyϼD:,AGm\nziÙ .uχYC6OMf3or$5N HT[XF64T,ќM0E)`#5XY`פ ;%1U٥m;R>QD DcpU'&LE/pm%]8firS4d 7y\`JnίI R 3U~7+#m qBiDi*L69mY&iHE=(K&N!V.KeLDĕ{D vEꦚdeNƟe(MN9ߜR6&3(a/DUz<{ˊYȳV)9Z[4^n5!J?Q3eBoCM m<.vp IYfZY_p[=al-Y}Nc͙ŋ4vfavl'SA8|*u{-ߟ0%M07% < ҍ PK !
ѐ ' theme/theme/_rels/themeManager.xml.relsM
0wooӺ&݈Э5
6?$Q
,.aic21h:qm@RN;d`o7gK(M&$R(.1r'JЊT8V"AȻHu}|$b{ P8g/ ]QAsم(#L[ PK- ! [Content_Types].xmlPK- ! ֧ 6 + _rels/.relsPK- ! ky theme/theme/themeManager.xmlPK- ! P theme/theme/theme1.xmlPK- !
ѐ ' theme/theme/_rels/themeManager.xml.relsPK ]
| h Y F z
` <
* * * * * -
! Q z$ $ G
$ $ & - ! L # A A @ 0 (
B
S ? h i t 1 h i t 2 h i t 3 h i t 4 h i t 5 h i t 6 h i t 7 h i t 8 LL ~ LL ~ LL
~ 9 *urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttagsplace = *urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags PlaceName = *urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags PlaceType hLu ; C
> D ! A 1 3 s u / > (.W5S 9xkF 99 xkFq W5Svl "TlSx F vl9 q"T
lSx " ? a * ~% aS. \V? +E iI e Q gV ig *n 6o '
o \Nq
k ]. 9 ! & d= _ T/ N\ e r X/ @ @ U n k n o w n G * Ax T i m e s N e w R o m a n 5 S y m b o l 3. * Cx A r i a l M C e n t u r y S c h o o l b o o k 7. @ C a l i b r i 7 @ C a m b r i a ?= * Cx C o u r i e r N e w A C a m b r i a M a t h " 1 h gg
6 S ' D W 3 ! 0 ~ 2 HX $P _ 2 ! x x p h a r v e y b m u n s t e r Oh +'0 0 x
( pharvey Normal bmunster 2 Microsoft Office Word @ F# @ \w;t@ rv@ rv 6 S ՜. +,D ՜. +,0 h p
EOEEA ' ~ Title H T _AdHocReviewCycleID _NewReviewCycle _EmailSubject
_AuthorEmail _AuthorEmailDisplayName _ReviewingToolsShownOnce (eB D In the matter of Gerald and Caroline Hart, Docket No. WET-2013-013 $ Pamela.Harvey@MassMail.State.MA.US Harvey, Pamela (DEP)
! " # $ % & ' ( ) * + , - . / 0 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 : ; < = > ? @ C D G R o o t E n t r y F P/'xF 1 T a b l e # W o r d D o c u m e n t 7< S u m m a r y I n f o r m a t i o n ( 1 D o c u m e n t S u m m a r y I n f o r m a t i o n 8 9 M s o D a t a S t o r e x@'x A F E B Z 4 S 3 Z Y A A = = 2 x@'x I t e m
P r o p e r t i e s U C o m p O b j
y
F' Microsoft Office Word 97-2003 Document
MSWordDoc Word.Document.8 9q