Summary
The Massachusetts Superior Court reviewed the Falmouth Conservation Commission’s denial of Great Harbors Resident Association’s application to expand its dock system and related variance requests. The court held that the Commission’s classification of Great Pond as a recreational harbor and its finding that Great Harbors failed to demonstrate the required hardship were not arbitrary or capricious. The court denied Great Harbors’ motion for judgment on the pleadings and affirmed the Commission’s decision.
Holdings
- The Commission's classification of Great Pond as a recreational harbor rather than a commercial harbor was supported by reasonable evidence and was not arbitrary or capricious.
- The Commission did not act arbitrarily or capriciously in finding that Great Harbors failed to establish the substantial economic loss required to demonstrate hardship under FWR 10.04.
- Great Harbors' contention that the variance procedures were impermissibly difficult or impossible to satisfy failed because applicants have no legal right to a variance and no statute or bylaw requires a conservation commission to provide a variance procedure.
- The Commission's preparation of an alternative draft approval did not establish that the findings supporting denial were arbitrary or capricious.
Questions Presented
- Whether the Commission acted arbitrarily and capriciously by classifying Great Pond as a recreational harbor rather than a commercial harbor, thereby requiring the proposed project to comply with variance procedures.
- Whether the Commission acted arbitrarily and capriciously in finding that Great Harbors failed to establish the legal hardship required for a variance under the Falmouth Wetlands Regulations.
- Whether the Falmouth variance procedures were legally invalid or impossible to satisfy.
- Whether the Commission's preparation of an alternative draft approval demonstrated that the findings supporting denial were arbitrary and capricious.
Disposition
affirmed
Cases Cited (15)
- Carney v. Springfield, 403 Mass. 604, 605 (1995)(followed)
- Murray v. Second Dist. Court of E. Middlesex, 389 Mass. 508, 511 (1983)(followed)
- Lovequist v. Conservation Comm'n of Dennis, 379 Mass. 7, 17-19 (1979)(followed)
- North Shore Corp. v. Board of Selectmen of Topsfield, 322 Mass. 413, 418 (1948)(followed)
- Forsyth Sch. for Dental Hygienists v. Board of Registration in Dentistry, 404 Mass. 211, 217 (1989)(followed)
- New Boston Garden Corp. v. Board of Assessors of Boston, 383 Mass. 456, 466-67 (1981)(followed)
- T.D.J. Dev. Corp. v. Conservation Comm'n of North Andover, 36 Mass. App. Ct. 124, 128 (1994)(followed)
- Cotter v. Chelsea, 329 Mass. 314, 318 (1952)(followed)
- Fafard v. Conservation Comm'n of Reading, 41 Mass. App. Ct. 565, 568 (1996)(followed)
- Dubuque v. Conservation Comm'n of Barnstable, 58 Mass. App. Ct. 824, 829 (2003)(followed)
Showing top 10 of 15.
Cited In (0)
No citing cases on record yet.
Court Document
Open PDFLoading document…