New England Legal Foundation
  • Home
  • About
    • Mission & History
    • Annual Reports
    • Board of Directors
    • State Advisory Councils >
      • Connecticut
      • Maine
      • Massachusetts
      • New Hampshire
      • Rhode Island
      • Vermont
    • Trustees
    • Members
    • Staff
    • Job & Internship Opportunities
  • News & Events
  • Docket
  • Briefs
  • Donate
  • Contact

Town of Canton v. Paiewonsky, et. al.

2/4/2010

 
Supporting the Statutory Requirement that a Legal Challenge to a Final Environmental Impact Report Must Be Promptly and Timely Brought

NELF, with National Association of Industrial and Office Properties (NAIOP) as co-amicus, filed a brief in this case supporting a real estate developer’s argument that suits brought to challenge the adequacy of a final environmental impact report must be brought within thirty days of the first issuance of a permit.  The case was accepted by the SJC for direct appellate review after Canton appealed a Superior Court decision dismissing its complaint against a developer whose project in a neighboring town would affect traffic volume in Canton.  The case stems from the Massachusetts statute that requires developers to complete an environmental impact report before commencing work on the project.  A related statute provides that the adequacy of the report may be challenged by a lawsuit brought within thirty days of the first issuance of a permit for the project.  In this case, because its only complaint about the report concerned the development’s likely impact on traffic patterns in the town, Canton did not bring suit until many months after the first permits had been issued since those permits did not concern traffic.  The developer successfully moved to dismiss Canton’s complaint as untimely.  

The question before the Supreme Judicial Court was whether, when a party wishes to commence an action challenging the adequacy of an environmental impact report, the time within which the party can bring an action commences to run upon the issuance of the first permit, whatever its subject matter, or upon issuance of the first permit that pertains to the party’s concerns.  Canton argued in favor of the latter interpretation and also argued, in the alternative, that its suit should not be found untimely even under the former interpretation because it did not receive notice of the issuance of the permits in question.  Based on the plain meaning of the statute and legislative intent, the Superior Court found that the time for filing began to run when the first permit was issued, irrespective of its subject matter.  NELF agreed with the Superior Court’s plain meaning interpretation and argued that the decision should be upheld because, among other things, the clearly stated statutory time limit (a) is jurisdictional and therefore cannot be tolled, (b) does not depend on whether or not a party received notice of the issuance of the first permit, and (c) represents the Legislature’s determination of how best to strike a balance between society’s need to encourage property development and its need to protect the environment without incurring undue economic and social costs.  

In its decision the SJC affirmed the dismissal of the action as untimely.  The Court declined to read into the plain meaning of the statute any qualifications for the subject matter of the triggering permit or for notice.  Informing the Court’s decision was its view that the statute’s circumscribed time limit reflects the Legislature’s goal of protecting the environment in a manner consistent with expediting property development and containing the social and economic costs resulting from litigation.

Comments are closed.

    The Docket

    To obtain a copy of any of NELF's briefs, contact us at info@nelfonline.org.

    Categories

    All
    1st Circuit Court Of Appeals
    2nd Circuit Court Of Appeals
    3rd Circuit Court Of Appeals
    Business Litigation Session
    CT
    CT Superior Court
    CT Supreme Court
    Employer Employee Relationships
    February 2018
    February 2019
    Government Regulation/Administration Of Justice
    MA
    MA Appeals Court
    MA Division Of Administrative Law Appeals
    March 2015
    MA Superior Court
    MA Supreme Judicial Court
    MA US District Court
    ME
    ME Supreme Judicial Court
    NH
    NH Supreme Court
    Property Rights
    RI
    RI Supreme Court
    SCOTUS
    United States Supreme Court
    US Court Of Appeals Federal Circuit
    US District Court ME
    VT
    VT Supreme Court

    RSS Feed

    Archives

    August 2020
    June 2020
    January 2020
    June 2019
    April 2019
    October 2018
    June 2018
    February 2018
    October 2017
    October 2016
    June 2016
    February 2016
    October 2015
    June 2015
    March 2015
    October 2014
    June 2014
    February 2014
    October 2013
    June 2013
    February 2013
    October 2012
    June 2012
    February 2012
    October 2011
    June 2011
    February 2011
    October 2010
    June 2010
    February 2010
    October 2009
    February 2009
    October 2008
    June 2008
    February 2008
    October 2007
    June 2007
    October 2006
    June 2006
    February 2006
    October 2005
    June 2005
    February 2005
    October 2004
    June 2004
    February 2004
    October 2003
    May 2003
    February 2003
    September 2002
    May 2002
    February 2002
    May 2001