Fafard v. Conservation Commission of Barnstable
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
432 Mass. 194, 733 N.E.2d 66 (2000)
- Written by Tanya Munson, JD
Facts
The City of Barnstable (the city) enacted a wetlands-protection bylaw to regulate work in and around wetlands more strictly than the state’s Wetlands Protection Act did. The wetlands bylaw vested in the Conservation Commission of Barnstable (the commission) the authority to issue and deny permits for several activities affecting wetlands resources. The commission adopted regulations for private piers and docks (pier regulations). The pier regulations prohibited piers from extending more than 20 percent of the width of a waterway and prohibited private piers from interfering with various water-related activities, including recreational uses. The pier regulations specified that the commission would consider pier proposals on a case-by-case basis. Madlyn and Howard Fafard owned a property on the Eel River and sought to construct a fixed pier that would occupy more than 20 percent of the width of the river. The commission denied the Fafard’s application because it did not conform with the pier regulations, would interfere with water-related activity and recreation, and the Fafards did not meet their burden of proving that the pier would not have an unacceptable significant and cumulative effect on the wetlands. The Fafards appealed the commission’s decision and argued that the city bylaws and pier regulations were invalid. The superior court affirmed the decision of the commission. The Fafards applied for direct appellate review.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Abrams, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 815,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.