Home

Dragonnorth...

Wildstar Farm

Case Law

Nason Hill Barn Fire Panel

Manure, Bugs and Disease

Rules & Officials

Solar Power

Login

Log In...

Conservation Cases

Index of all cases in Mass. www.masscases.com

Michael GARRITY vs. CONSERVATION COMMISSION OF HINGHAM
The town did not comply with prompt action rules and as a consequence could not impose sanctions. The town could not claim the time frames were waived without explicit and knowing written action by the applicant. The town's required 'delay allowed' form was not enough. The ruling also states that town bylaw provisions could not be imposed after failing to comply with state 21 day decision rules.

TOWN OF BOURNE vs. HILDA E. AUSTIN
The town sought to sanction for repairs that had no NOI and was overturned. Maintenance is clearly allowed. The case also discuses that temporary change (in this instance wooden forms) is a normal and allowed part of maintenance.

Cape American Cranberry (Ag exemption)
This case defines strict limits on town bylaw jurisdiction over agricultural use of land.

DISTRICT ATTORNEY FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT vs. SCHOOL COMMITTEE OF WAYLAND.
The case brings out certain principals of the open meeting law. Prohibiting discussions by email among members of the committee and prohibiting executive sessions to hide discussions and actions.

Ames Case
In this document MacGregor and the town of Easton are held accountable preventing a technical expert from testifying for their opponent. The town Administrator told the professional that testifying would affect the amount of work he got from them on other projects. The judge limited his sanction to issues related to fairness in this case. He makes it sound like he is not happy he had to limit his sanction in that way.

Westfield vs. Brenda L. Coggin
Judge Sands who is hearing the Wildstar cases decided a case against a horse stable that was performing major excavation to create new fields and room for stable expansion. The excavation was determined to be not incidental to the agricultural activity but an activity in and of itself. This seemed to hinge on the fact that the income from selling the excavated material was much greater than the income from the stable.

M & R INDUSTRIAL PARK TRUST vs. JOHN GOLDROSEN & others1
local copy
The Superior Court issued a summary judgement that upheld a local requirement for sprinklers. A special permit was required and granted by the board of appeals, requiring sprinklers and a fire alarm. The building was smaller than the 7500 square feet that requires sprinklers. The judgement was viewed as an appeal to a previous ruling that was claimed to be arbitrary capricious, and outside the scope of the authority of the board. The court ruled that the local board could require sprinklers, even though it had not required sprinklers of other buildings. The case was not a limited EIDR review and thus may not be germain.

Cutter Farm 764 Mamouth Rd. Dracut MA
This Automatic Sprinkler Appeals Board Decision on a riding ring similar to ours clearly states that sprinklers are not required. The applicant removed the viewing facilities. It did limit the uses of the ring to the riding and training of horses. Riding and horse handling lessons for participants only were OK, an audiance or show viewing was not.

Peter DeCarolis vs. Townsend Conservation Commission
This decision from the Land Court on an appeal brought by a landowner who was denied an Order of Conditions under a local wetland bylaw. The decision is instructive to our case in that the judge (Grossman) thoroughly analyzed and applied the standards of review pertaining to appeals from local Orders of Conditions. The text of the decision starting on page 23 is particularly relevant. Specifically, our burden will be to show that the Commission's conditions were not directly related (or, in the Court's words, tethered) to a unique interest protected under the Westwood's wetlands bylaw, and therefore should be superseded by whatever DEP decides on our Request for Superseding Order.

ROBERT A. DONOVAN & another vs. JOHN GARDNER
This case awards anti-SLAPP damages to neighbors who harassed a stable where the stable sued them for harasment and abuse of process. Despite being decided against the stable it is valuable because it sets out the required standard for what is and is not allowed when suing for harasment in this way. BROWN, J. wrote a strong dissent saying that the decision itself was an abuse. This case made clear that the anti-SLAPP laws simply provide for what amounts to automatic damages if the plantiff loses the case.

KATHLEEN B. HENRY vs. BOARD OF APPEALS OF DUNSTABLE.
This case suggests that if an activity is agricultural it is exempt from local zoning. A large excavation and removal of earth was not allowed by the case where local (zoning)regulation prohibited it. The decision to uphold the ruling was based on a ruling that the earth moving activity was not incidental to the farming activity. The case makes it clear that if the activity was a part of the farming activity or incidental to the farming activity that the local zoning would not apply.

Tremont Case
Appeals Court decision, admonishing the Westwood Conservation Commission. The rule of law in this case does not apply to Wildstar Farm because the Commission has subsequently adopted regulations governing alterations within the 35-foot buffer zone.

High Rock Stable vs. Town of Walpole

TOWN OF STURBRIDGE vs. SANDRA J. B. MCDOWELL.
This case specifically refers to Steege vs Stow with the following words: (the operation of a boarding stable for horses and a riding academy deemed an agricultural use protected by G. L. c. 40A, Section 3)

MITCHELL STEEGE & another vs. BOARD OF APPEALS OF STOW & others.

Grudinskas v. Town of Walpole Zoning Board of Appeals

Volandre vs. Board of Appeals of the Town of Norwell, 13 LCR 465, 468 (8/31/95)

BUILDING INSPECTOR OF MANSFIELD vs. CHRISTOPHER CURVIN
Discusses if Mansfield can prohibit a piggery.

Bateman vs Board of Appeals of Georgetown October 9, 2002
The Batemans are neighbors of the Wylies. The Board of Appeals approved granting the Wylies of permission to build a riding academy on their land. In this opinion, the Appeals Court says that decision was correct and that there is no need for a special use permit because the use of the land for a dressage academy is an agricultural use that is exempt from that requirement.

Sprinklers at Windkist Farm
local copy
Definitive case on sprinklers in an indoor riding arena. They are not required when use is limited to riding and training. The case does not state if they are required if the use expands to horse shows. It suggests that they may be required if that happens.

Sudbury: Mead Trust - J.P. Bartlett Co., Inc.
local copy
Case motivated by state law that allowed agricultural housing.

Worcester vs. Wibley
Case where a church was required to connect to a water main 500 yards away. It had legal access via a public road.

Related Materials