Source: http://masscases.com/cases/land/1988/1988-116610-DECISION.html
Timestamp: 2019-04-20 10:50:22+00:00

Document:
CREATIVE HOUSING COMPANY, INC. vs. TOWN OF BREWSTER and JANE WAGONER, JANE REMY, JANE SULLIVAN, H. R. OLFIELD, RICHARD G. STEVENS and SUSAN LINDQUIST.
1. The plaintiff Creative Housing Company, Inc. is the owner of lot 48 located on Lake Shore Drive in Brewster, Massachusetts (hereinafter "lot 48"), and is the owner of lot 95 on Crowell's Bog Road (formerly Crosby Neck Road) in Brewster, Massachusetts (hereinafter "lot 95").
2. Both lot 48 and lot 95 are located in a residential "R-L" zoning district under the Town of Brewster Zoning By-Law (hereinafter "the by-law"). The relevant by-law is that in effect as of October, 1984.
3. The construction and occupancy of a single family dwelling is allowed as a matter of right in an R-L zoning district pursuant to Section V. of the by-law.
4. Lot 48 and lot 95 have at all relevant times been separate parcels of land and are recognized as such in the records of the Town of Brewster. Lot 48 appears as "Lot 78" on Brewster Town Map 49. Lot 95 appears as "Lot 17" on Brewster Town Map 49.
5. On October 22, 1984, the Inspector of Buildings/Zoning Agent of the Town of Brewster (hereinafter "building inspector") visited lot 48 and lot 95. The building inspector dug one test hole on each lot, and made certain observations regarding soil make-up and water levels.
6. By a letter dated October 23, 1984, the building inspector advised CHC of his observations, and stated that he would have to deny any building permits to construct single family dwellings on lots 48 and 95 for the reasons detailed in the letter.
7. Neither lot 48 nor lot 95 appears in an area designated as a Wetlands Conservancy District under Section III. D. of the by-law on the map entitled "Map of the Wetlands Conservancy Districts in the Town of Brewster, Massachusetts" dated October 31, 1974. Said map only designates Wetlands Conservancy Districts three acres or more in area, and both lot 48 and lot 95 have areas less than three acres.
8. Section III. D. 1. a. of the Brewster zoning by-law lists the following soil types and soil associations as "Wetland Conservancy District soils": muck, peat, tidal marsh, coastal beach, cranberry bog, fresh water marsh, Deerfield, Au Gres, Scarboro, Ningret, Belgrade and Raynham.
9. The soil survey Field Sheets do not indicate the presence on either lot 48 or lot 95 of any soil types or soil associations listed as "Wetland Conservancy District soils" in Section III. D. 1. a. of the by-law, but rather list both as in an area designated "unclassified."
10. Section III. D. 1. a. of the by-law also references a report prepared for the Town of Brewster by the U. S. Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service, which report contains descriptions of the "Wetland Conservancy District soils."
11. Lot 48 does not presently contain any of the soil types or soil associations listed as "Wetland Conservancy District soils" in Section III. D. 1. of the by-law.
12. Lot 48 was included in the Wetlands Conservancy District by the building inspector and the Board of Appeals on the basis of their determination that lot 48 was once a freshwater marsh that was filled in the early 1960's (Board of Appeals Decision 86-22, dated May 13, 1986).
13. On lot 95, the building inspector determined that there was a stratum of soil between 52 and 55 inches beneath the surface consisting of a mixture of peat and black sand. This is the only soil encountered on lot 95 by the building inspector which he determined to be a soil type or soil association listed as a "Wetland Conservancy District soil" in the by-law.
14. Lot 95 was included in the Wetlands Conservancy District by the building inspector and the Board of Appeals on the basis of their determination that the material found between 52 and 55 inches beneath the surface, which they determined to be a mixture of peat and black sand, was a soil type or soil association listed as a "Wetland Conservancy District soil" in the by-law, and also on the basis of their determination that lot 95 was once a cranberry bog that was filled in the early 1960's (Board of Appeals Decision 86-23, dated May 13, 1986).
These are very poorly drained bog soils formed in organic deposits which are underlain by mineral soil material. Peat soils have dark reddish colors and the plant remains can be identified by the unaided eye. These soils are mostly woody peat with some spagnum peat areas. They occur in depressions and potholes in which the water table is at or near the surface most of the year. Some of the soils have 1 to 3 feet of organic matter over mineral soil material but most of them have many feet of organic material.
16. The word "soil", as employed in both the Brewster zoning by-law and the Soil Conservation Service report, is a term of art referring to the upper layer of the earth's crust beginning at the surface and extending down to a depth at which soil-forming factors cease to operate.
17. Soils may consist of distinct layers or "horizons" of material, which, when appearing together in certain recognized configurations, constitute a particular soil "type". "Peat" is one such soil type, although the word may also be used to describe organic material which, taken alone, is not itself "soil." "Soil association" is a broader unit of classification comprising two or more soil types that share similar characteristics, yet which nevertheless are distinct.
a. Wetland Conservancy Districts soils shall include the following soil types and soil associations: Muck, peat, tidal marsh, coastal beach, cranberry bog, freshwater marsh, Deerfield, Au Gres, Scarboro, Ningret, Belgrade and Raynham. Soil descriptions and their	[sic] interpretation of land uses will be found in the report prepared for the Town of Brewster by the United States Department of Agriculture Soil Conservation Service.
b. The locations and boundaries	of the Wetlands Conservancy Districts shall be shown by an overlay map entitled, "Map of the Wetlands Conservancy Districts in the Town of Brewster, Massachusetts", dated October 31, 1974 filed with the Town Clerk, and hereby made a part of this By-Law. Detailed soil survey Field Sheets on file with the Town Clerk shall be used, if necessary, to determine boundaries with respect to any given parcel.
c. Any parcels or portions of land too small to show on this map but containing soil types and associations as described in a. above shall be subject to this By-Law.
Lots 48 and 95, each being less than three acres in area, are not shown on the map of Wetlands Conservancy Districts. To be considered a Wetlands Conservancy District, therefore, each parcel must contain at least one of the soil types or soil associations listed in Section III. D. 1. a. of the by-law. For descriptions of these soil types and associations, the by-law references a report prepared for Brewster by the U.S. Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service.
Taking the subject parcels one at a time, the parties have stipulated, and I have found, that lot 48 does not presently contain any of the soil types or soil associations listed in Section III. D. 1. a. of the by-law. Rather, the defendants ground their inclusion of lot 48 in a wetlands conservancy district on their determination that the parcel was at one time a freshwater marsh that was filled some time in the early 1960's. In essence, the defendants ask the court to amplify the Brewster by-law so as to include a provision that parcels not shown on the map of Wetlands Conservancy Districts, but which are known to be filled wetlands, are entitled to protection as wetlands although they do not contain any of the soil types or soil associations listed in Section III. D. 1. a.
It is true that courts must not view challenged zoning provisions in isolation, but rather must give them a sensible and practical meaning in the context of the by-law as a whole. See Selectmen of Hatfield v. Garvey, 362 Mass. 821 , 826 (1973); Green v. Board of Appeal of Norwood, 358 Mass. 253 , 258-259 (1970); Owens v. Board of Appeals of Belmont, 11 Mass. App. Ct. 889 , 995 (1981). It is also true, however, that courts are bound by the language used in the bylaw, and must construe words according to their common and approved usages without enlargement or restriction and without regard to the court's own conception of expediency. See Framingham Clinic, Inc. v. Zoning Bd. of Appeals of Framingham, 382 Mass. 283 , 290 (1981); Kurz v. Board of Appeals of N. Reading, 341 Mass. 110 , 112 (1960); Commonwealth v. S. S. Kresge Co., 267 Mass. 145 , 148 (1929). In other words, it is the reviewing court's duty to determine what the bylaw says, not what the court (or any of the contesting parties, for that matter) believes it should have said.
The court's analysis with respect to lot 95 differs from that pertaining to lot 48 in that the building inspector found on lot 95 a substance that arguably brings the parcel within the definition of a Wetlands Conservancy District provided in Section III. D. 1. a. of the by­law. The report of the building inspector indicates that he found, among other substances, a layer of "medium black sand/peat mix" from 52" to 55" below the surface of lot 95. Similarly to lot 48, lot 95's status as a filled wetland (in this instance a cranberry bog) is immaterial based on the unambiguous language of the by-law. Accordingly, the key to our inquiry is the question, does a three-inch layer of "medium black sand/peat mix" qualify as "peat" as that term is employed in Section III. D. 1. a. of the by-law?
Both the above description and Section III. D. 1. a. of the Brewster by-law refer to peat as a "soil." As expert testimony at trial indicated, and as I have found, "soil" is a term of art that refers to the upper layer of the earth's crust beginning at the surface and extending down to a depth where soil-forming factors cease to operate. Soils may consist of distinct layers or "horizons" of material which, when appearing together in certain recognized configurations, constitute a particular soil "type." The definition of peat soil appearing in the Soil Conservation Service report indicates that peat soils are found in depressions and potholes where the water table is at or near the surface most of the year, usually consist of one to three feet or more of organic material, and are underlain by mineral soil material.
In the instant case, the building inspector dug one test pit on lot 95 and found, among other material, a layer of "medium black sand/peat mix." This layer or horizon was not found in a depression or pothole, but 52 to 55 inches beneath the surface of lot 95. Moreover, because the building inspector did not dig deeper than 55 inches, there is no evidence indicating the thickness of this horizon, nor whether it is underlain by mineral soil material. Consequently, while the building inspector may have found below the surface of lot 95 a horizon containing, along with black sand, the substance peat, his findings were not sufficient to establish the presence on lot 95 of peat soil as that term is unambiguously defined by the Soil Conservation Service report.
As neither lot 48 nor lot 95 are Wetlands Conservancy Districts, the court need not reach the issue of whether the relevant by-law provisions are unconstitutional as applied to lots 48 and 95. Similarly, the court need not reach issues relating to the plaintiff's applications for special permits and variances. Both parties submitted requests for findings of fact and rulings of law. As the court has found the facts in detail and set out the applicable law in its decision, it declines to rule individually on the parties' numerous requests.
[Note 1] In their supplementary memorandum, the defendants raise a number of issues concerning the regulation of filled wetlands, for example "If a filled marsh is treated differently from a marsh, does this mean that a dusting of topsoil suffices? If not, will one inch or thirty feet suffice? How old must the fill be before it is considered effectively part of the area's environment? May it be a year, or must it be a hundred years?" etc. These intriguing questions do not, however, change the fact that as presently written, Section III. D. of the Brewster zoning by-law does not apply to lot 48. What such questions illustrate is the care and consideration the town must bring to bear when crafting a by-law to explicity bring certain filled wetlands within the ambit of the wetlands conservancy regulations.
[Note 2] Although the court has ruled that neither lot 48 nor lot 95 contain any of the soil types or soil associations listed in Section III. D. 1. a. of the Brewster zoning by-law, both lots appear to fall within another soil category established by the Soil Conservation Service report but not mentioned in the by-law. The report describes "Made Land" as "areas filled with earth or other kinds of material, or is [sic] so altered that the soils cannot be identified." The town may consider an amendment to its zoning by-law providing that an area determined to consist of "made land" may be accorded Wetlands Conservancy District status pending an on-site investigation to determine whether the area functions as a wetland. Such an amendment would seem to accomplish the town's laudable conservation objectives while at the same time affording reasonable notice to owners of "made land" that development of their land may be restricted or prohibited.

References: V. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.