Title: Miramar Park Ass’n. v. Town of Dennis
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: SJC-12449
State: Massachusetts
Issuer: Massachusetts Supreme Court
Date: August 30, 2018

NOTICE:  All slip opinions and orders are subject to formal 
revision and are superseded by the advance sheets and bound 
volumes of the Official Reports.  If you find a typographical 
error or other formal error, please notify the Reporter of 
Decisions, Supreme Judicial Court, John Adams Courthouse, 1 
Pemberton Square, Suite 2500, Boston, MA, 02108-1750; (617) 557-
1030; SJCReporter@sjc.state.ma.us 
 
SJC-12449 
 
MIRAMAR PARK ASSOCIATION, INC., & others1  vs.  TOWN OF DENNIS. 
 
 
 
Barnstable.     March 8, 2018. - August 30, 2018. 
 
Present:  Gants, C.J., Gaziano, Lowy, Budd, Cypher, & 
Kafker, JJ. 
 
 
Beach.  Real Property, Beach.  Environment, Coastal wetlands.  
Wetlands Protection Act.  Regulation. 
 
 
 
 
Civil action commenced in the Superior Court Department on 
September 10, 2014. 
 
 
The case was heard by Cornelius J. Moriarty, II, J., on 
motions for summary judgment. 
 
 
The Supreme Judicial Court on its own initiative 
transferred the case from the Appeals Court. 
                     
1 Ronald J. Mastrocola, as trustee of the Judy Mastrocola 
Qualified Personal Residence Trust; Ellen Rooney; Mary E. 
Pendergast Dwyer, as trustee of Miramar Realty Trust; Philip 
Ryan; Robert S. Crespi and Louise M. Crespi, as trustees of the 
Crespi Dennisport Realty Trust; Timothy F. Keefe; Anne M. Keefe; 
Joseph F. Lawlor; Susan D. Lawlor; Daniel T. Bagley; Maryanne T. 
Bagley; Stephen A. Sousa; Susan E. Sousa; Robert H. Barrows; 
Clyde N. Grindell, as trustee of the Grindell Nominee Trust; 
Richard B. McGaughey; Josephine McGaughey; Gregory E. Hayes; 
Margaret E. Hayes; James T. Lynch; Kathleen Lynch; Mark Scamman; 
Amy Scamman; Dean Wasniewski; Annemarie Wasniewski; Mitch Breen; 
and Richard Dieter and Susan Deeter, as trustees of the Miramar 
Avenue 75 Realty Trust. 
2 
 
 
 
 
 
Gregg J. Corbo for the defendant. 
 
Brian J. Wall for the plaintiffs. 
 
 
 
GAZIANO, J.  In this appeal, we are asked to consider 
whether dredging and beach nourishment projects undertaken by 
the town of Dennis violated Massachusetts environmental 
regulations by requiring that materials dredged from the mouth 
of a tidal river be deposited on a publicly-owned beach, rather 
than on an adjacent, privately-owned beach.  The plaintiffs, 
homeowners and a homeowners' association, commenced an action in 
the Superior Court, pursuant to G. L. c. 214, § 7A, against the 
town, seeking injunctive relief and a declaratory judgment on 
their claim that the town's actions violated a Department of 
Environmental Protection (DEP) regulation designed to protect 
beaches that are downdrift from jetties from loss of sediments 
caused by the jetties.  After both parties filed cross motions 
for summary judgment, a Superior Court judge concluded that the 
town's extension of a jetty at the mouth of Swan Pond River in 
the early 1990s triggered the requirements of 310 Code Mass. 
Regs. § 10.27 (2014), and allowed the plaintiffs' motion.  The 
judge also issued an injunction permanently requiring the town 
"periodically [to re]dredge [the river]" and to deposit the 
dredged material on the plaintiffs' private beach.  The town 
3 
 
 
appealed, and we transferred the case from the Appeals Court on 
our own motion. 
 
We conclude that judgment should not have entered for the 
plaintiffs, and that judgment instead should have entered for 
the town.  Among other things, the plaintiffs have introduced 
nothing in the summary judgment record showing that the town's 
extension of the jetty violated, or even triggered, the 
requirements of 310 Code Mass. Regs. § 10.27(4)(c).  In 
addition, as the judge found, the town's subsequent dredging of 
the river did not trigger the requirements of that regulation.   
Because the plaintiffs would be unable to prove an essential 
element of their claim at trial, the order of injunction must be 
vacated, and the judgment allowing summary judgment for the 
plaintiffs must be reversed. 
 
1.  Statutory overview.  A number of potentially 
overlapping statutes and regulations are at issue in this case.  
Because an understanding of the interrelationships among them is 
essential to understanding the issues raised, we describe each 
in some detail. 
 
General Laws c. 214, § 7A,2 an environmental citizen suit 
provision, allows a group of at least ten residents of the 
                     
2 General Laws c. 214, § 7A, provides, in relevant part: 
 
"The [S]uperior [C]ourt for the county in which damage 
to the environment is occurring or is about to occur may, 
4 
 
 
Commonwealth to file a complaint in the Superior Court when 
damage to the environment is occurring or is about to occur as a 
result of an action by, inter alia, a municipality, that is in 
"violation of a statute, ordinance, by-law or regulation the 
major purpose of which is to prevent or minimize damage to the 
environment."  See Boston v. Massachusetts Port Auth., 364 Mass. 
639, 645 (1974).  The statute defines "damage to the 
environment" as "any destruction, damage or impairment, actual 
or probable, to any of the natural resources of the 
[C]ommonwealth, whether caused by the defendant alone or by the 
defendant and others acting jointly or severally."  G. L. 
c. 214, § 7A. 
 
The wetlands protection act, G. L. c. 131, § 40 (act), "was 
created to protect wetlands from destructive intrusion," Healer 
v. Department of Envtl. Protection, 73 Mass. App. Ct. 714, 716 
(2009), and, inter alia, governs the dredging of wetlands and 
lands bordering waters.  See G. L. c. 131, § 40.  The act 
requires, in relevant part, that a party wishing to dredge first 
                                                                  
upon a civil action in which equitable or declaratory 
relief is sought in which not less than ten persons 
domiciled within the commonwealth are joined as 
plaintiffs . . . determine whether such damage is occurring 
or is about to occur and may, before the final 
determination of the action, restrain the person causing or 
about to cause such damage; provided, however, that the 
damage caused or about to be caused by such person 
constitutes a violation of a statute, ordinance, by-law or 
regulation the major purpose of which is to prevent or 
minimize damage to the environment. 
5 
 
 
must file a written notice with a local issuing authority, 
often, as in this case, a local conservation commission, which 
exercises local regulatory authority under the act.  See G. L. 
c. 131, § 40.  Following a hearing, the authority shall 
determine if the project affects an area that is "significant to 
public or private water supply, to the groundwater supply, to 
flood control, to storm damage prevention, to prevention of 
pollution, to protection of land containing shellfish, to the 
protection of wildlife habitat or to the protection of 
fisheries."  Id.  If so, the issuing authority issues a written 
order that "impose[s] such conditions as will contribute to the 
protection of [these] interests . . . and all work shall be done 
in accordance therewith."  Id.  No work may be done without 
"receiving and complying with [this] order of conditions."  Id.  
DEP has promulgated regulations under G. L. c. 131, § 40, to 
protect wetlands.  See 310 Code Mass. Regs. §§ 10.00 (2014).  
Specifically, 310 Code Mass. Regs. §§ 10.21-10.37 are applicable 
to all dredging covered under G. L. c. 131, § 40.  See 310 Code 
Mass. Regs. § 10.21.  These regulations are 
"performance standards . . . intended to identify the level of 
protection the issuing authority must impose in order to 
contribute to the protection of the interests of [G. L.] c. 131, 
§ 40."  Id.  If the issuing authority determines that a project 
will affect one of the protected interests under the act, the 
6 
 
 
issuing authority must "order specific measures and requirements 
for each proposed project which will ensure that the project is 
designed and carried out consistent with the required level of 
protection," and must memorialize those requirements in an 
"[o]rder of [c]onditions which is understandable and 
enforceable."  Id. 
 
A number of other State and Federal statutes and 
regulations concerning water quality also are applicable to the 
areas at issue in this case.  General Laws c. 21, § 27, provides 
that "[i]t shall be the duty and responsibility of the division 
[of water pollution control] to enhance the quality and value of 
water resources and to establish a program for prevention, 
control, and abatement of water pollution" in the Commonwealth.  
DEP has issued water quality regulations pursuant to G. L. 
c. 21, § 27, and G. L. c. 91, §§ 52-56.  See 314 Code Mass. 
Regs. §§ 9.00 (2014).  Section 9.01(1) of those regulations 
provides that they "establish[] procedures and criteria for the 
administration of Section 401 of the [F]ederal Clean Water Act, 
33 U.S.C. [§] 1251."  Section 9.01 (3)(a) of those regulations, 
in particular, seeks to "protect[] the public health and 
restor[e] and maintain[] the chemical, physical, and biological 
integrity of the water resources of the Commonwealth by 
establishing requirements, standards, and procedures" for 
dredging.  Title 310 Code Mass. Regs. § 9.40(4)(a) (2017), more 
7 
 
 
specifically, governs the spoils of dredging projects.  As 
relevant here, it provides that "in the case of a publicly-
funded dredging project, such material shall be placed on 
publicly-owned eroding beaches."  See id. 
 
Finally, G. L. c. 30B, § 15 (a) and (b), of the procurement 
act, provides that a "governmental body shall dispose of a 
tangible supply that is no longer useful to the governmental 
body but having resale or salvage value," through "competitive 
sealed bids, public auction, or established markets." 
 
2.  Background.  We recite the facts from the judge's 
statement of "undisputed facts revealed by the summary judgment 
record," supplemented by other uncontested facts in the record.   
See Chin v. Merriot, 470 Mass. 527, 529 (2015). 
 
a.  Historic dredging at mouth of Swan Pond River.  
Plaintiff Miramar Park Association owns lot 88 on Land Court 
Plan 11503-J, a parcel of land on the Nantucket Sound shoreline 
in the Dennisport area of the town; lot 88 contains a private 
beach known as Miramar Beach.  The individual plaintiffs own 
easements appurtenant to their properties for the use of Miramar 
Beach and the upland area of lot 88 for recreational purposes.  
Lot 88 is located east of the eastern shore of Swan Pond River 
and Miramar Road, a few lots east of the mouth of the river as 
it empties into Nantucket Sound.  Lot 87 on Land Court Plan 
11503-J, and lot 84 on Land Court Plan 11503-I, formerly owned 
8 
 
 
by the same owner who sold the Miramar Beach parcel to the 
Miramar Beach Association, lie along the shoreline to the west 
of lot 88.  One of the individual plaintiffs, Michael Breen, 
owns lot 87, to the east of Miramar Road, and lot 84, to the 
west of that road.  In addition, two other plaintiffs, Annemarie 
and Dean Wasniewski, hold easements over Lot 87. 
 
On the western side of the Swan Pond River inlet is a stone 
jetty.  The record does not establish when and by whom the jetty 
was constructed.  A study conducted in 2010 by the Woods Hole 
Group, Inc. (Woods Hole), on behalf of the town commented that 
the jetty was in existence at least by 1850; a study conducted 
by a geologist on behalf of the plaintiffs noted that the jetty 
was constructed between 1935 and 1943.  The jetty traps littoral 
drift material as it is carried along the predominantly west to 
east direction of the currents in this part of Nantucket Sound.  
The jetty does not have a sand by-pass system, which would 
transfer sediment to the eastern side of the inlet.  See 310 Code 
Mass. Regs. § 10.27(4)(c). 
 
The mouth of Swan Pond River periodically becomes partially 
filled with sand.  This results in reduced tidal flow, which 
leads to algae blooms, fish kills, and foul odors upstream along 
the river and in Swan Pond.  To facilitate boat navigation and 
improve water flow, the town has conducted periodic dredging 
operations at the mouth of Swan Pond River since at least 1980.  
9 
 
 
It dredged the entrance to the river in 1980, 1984, 1988, 1997, 
1998, 2000, 2010, and 2014.  A planned dredging in 2016 did not 
take place.  The locations of the placement of the fill from the 
three dredges in 1980, 1984, and 1988 are not indicated in the 
record.  Thereafter, the town has placed sediment removed during 
the dredging at West Dennis Beach, a public beach located 
approximately three-quarters of a mile west of the jetty; in the 
area immediately landward of the jetty, to the west of the 
river; and, in 1996, on Miramar Beach as well as on West Dennis 
Beach.  After the town deposited the spoils on Miramar Beach, 
the condition of the beach improved.  In May, 1990, the town 
acquired an easement over property near the western mouth of 
Swan Pond River, three lots from the coastline, along the 
river's edge, in conjunction with an engineering study and other 
efforts to improve water flow and navigation on Swan Pond River.  
The easement over lot 3-A includes the right to access the 
property for "dredging, rip rap and environmental purposes."3 
                     
3 As relevant here, the terms of the easement authorize the 
town 
 
"to excavate and remove dredging material; to place 
dredging material; to maintain, repair and improve an 
existing revetment; to construct, maintain and repair a new 
revetment; to perform related work necessary for said 
purposes; to inspect the easement area and said work; to 
enter upon the easement area for said purposes; [and] to 
bring machinery and equipment into the easement area for 
said purposes." 
 
10 
 
 
 
At some point in the early 1990s, apparently before 
October, 1992,4 the town extended the then existing jetty on the 
western side of the mouth of the river northward, further 
upriver, in an effort to prevent the erosion of the western 
shoreline of the inlet.  There is no indication in the summary 
judgment record whether any permits were obtained for this work 
from the town's conservation commission or from any relevant 
State or Federal regulatory body, and, if so, what conditions, 
if any, were placed on it.5 
                     
4 In October, 1992, residents of Miramar Park sent a 
petition to the town requesting that a second jetty be built on 
the eastern side of the inlet, as a possible means of 
stabilizing the mouth of the river and reducing the erosion of 
Miramar Beach.  The petition was discussed at a subsequent town 
meeting.  Since that time, no jetty has been constructed on the 
eastern side of Swan Pond River. 
 
5 In April, 1994, the town obtained an easement over a 
portion of lot 88 below the mean high water line for "public on-
foot right of passage" to be exercised not earlier than sunrise 
or one-half hour after sunset, subject to further restrictions 
for protection of marine fisheries, wildlife, and erosion 
control.  The town's board of selectmen voted to accept the 
easement "for the purposes of dredging the mouth of Swan River 
and placing dredge spoils on the east side of Swan River," 
conditioned on a public right of access to walk on the area 
below the high tide line.  Both the language of the easement and 
the attached sketch indicate that the land that was nourished in 
1996 was below the mean high water mark, a form of beach 
nourishment that is prohibited under the current permits, which 
all require nourishment only above the mean high water line.  In 
his letter approving the town's request for an environmental 
impact assessment report for its ten-year comprehensive plan, 
the Secretary of the Department of Energy and Environmental 
Affairs noted that, should any areas of private beach be 
nourished with dredging spoils, as indicated in the areas 
designated 2 and 3 along Nantucket Sound, the landowners would 
11 
 
 
 
b.  2010 and 2014 dredging and comprehensive permit.  There 
are nineteen public beaches and three rivers within the town's 
borders.  In 2010, in preparation for applying for a 
comprehensive permit from various local, State, and Federal 
authorities, the town commissioned a study and report from Woods 
Hole concerning the comprehensive needs for dredging and beach 
nourishment throughout the town.  The report included a section 
on Swan Pond River, which noted the need for "a program of 
maintenance dredging," in intervals of from one to ten years, in 
order to "maintain adequate tidal circulation within the Swan 
Pond River."  In November, 2010, the plaintiffs commissioned a 
study of Miramar Beach, with a particular focus on the impact of 
the jetty on beach erosion.  The Woods Hole study was submitted 
with the town's environmental notification form for an emergency 
project in 2009 to dredge Swan Pond River and to construct a 
beach dune at West Dennis Beach.  It also was submitted with the 
town's expanded environmental notification form filed with the 
Secretary of the Department of Energy and Environmental Affairs 
in conjunction with the town's "ten-year comprehensive dredging 
and beach nourishment plan." 
 
Prior to dredging the mouth of Swan Pond River in 2010, the 
town acquired permits from a number of local, State, and Federal 
                                                                  
be required to provide the town with an easement for a right of 
public access below the mean high water mark. 
12 
 
 
agencies to conduct dredging and beach nourishment specifically 
at Swan Pond River and West Dennis Beach, respectively.  The 
town acquired two permits, to dredge the river and to nourish 
West Dennis Beach, from the conservation commission, pursuant to 
the wetlands protection act.  The commission approved the 
dredging and beach nourishment projects according to the town's 
wetlands bylaw, which is "independent of the Wetlands Protection 
Act" and provides "the Commission shall impose conditions, which 
the Commission deems necessary or desirable to protect those 
wetland values, and all activities shall be in accordance with 
those conditions."  See Dennis Wetlands Bylaw at 4, 5, 
http://www.town.dennis.ma.us/Pages 
/DennisMA_BComm/conservation/Rules%20and%20Regs/Bylaw.pdf 
[https://perma.cc/8UGF-92VD]).  The conservation commission 
issued both permits with orders of conditions.6 
 
In August, 2009, the town also received a waiver of the 
requirement to prepare an environmental impact report and a 
public benefits determination from the Executive Office of 
Energy and Environmental Affairs.  The Secretary of the 
Executive Office of Energy and Environmental Affairs (Secretary) 
concluded that the construction of the beach dune at West Dennis 
Beach would "enhance the sediment-starved beach and protect 
                     
6 The record contains the full order of conditions for the 
beach nourishment project, and limited portions of the 
conditions imposed for the Swan Pond River dredging project. 
13 
 
 
against continuous storm damage.  In addition, endangered 
shorebird habitat will be enhanced."  In making this 
determination, the Secretary considered supportive written 
comments from the following organizations:  the Massachusetts 
Division of Marine Fisheries, the Cape Cod Commission, the 
Natural Heritage and Endangered Species Program, the 
Massachusetts Board of Underwater Archaeological Resources, and 
the Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection 
(Southeast regional office). 
 
After receiving the 10-year permits for the Swan Pond River 
dredging project and the West Dennis Beach nourishment project, 
the town dredged the mouth of Swan Pond River in 2010.  As 
specified in the permits, the town used the spoils of the 2010 
dredging to construct a sand dune to protect a failing bulkhead 
on West Dennis Beach that protects a public parking lot and 
endangered species nesting areas.  The erosion from the dune is 
intended to protect the beach from severe erosion from winter 
storms. 
 
The then president of the Miramar Avenue Association7 sent a 
letter to the town about the town's plans to transport the 
sediment to the public West Dennis Beach, rather than placing it 
on Miramar Beach.  In response, the town's director of natural 
                     
7 The Miramar Avenue Association was the unincorporated 
predecessor of the Miramar Park Association. 
 
14 
 
 
resources wrote to the association that the placement of the 
spoils on Miramar Beach in 1996 had been done under the permits 
in effect for that particular project; the director cited an 
earlier communication from 1994, explaining that, after the 
permits expired, "the Town will have to go through a new permit 
process again and seek new permits.  Any new permit would give 
the Town the right to seek any new disposal area . . . in the 
best interest of the Town." 
 
With respect to its comprehensive ten-year dredging and 
beach nourishment plan, the town thereafter similarly received a 
number of separate approvals from DEP for both the dredging 
project and the beach nourishment project.8  Permits for both 
projects were received pursuant to the State waterways program, 
G. L. c. 91, §§ 52-56, which provides that DEP "shall supervise 
the transportation and dumping of all material dredged in the 
tide waters of the commonwealth," including by employing an 
inspector at the expense of the permittee.  The town also 
received a water quality certification for the dredging plan, 
pursuant to G. L. c. 21, §§ 26-53, and the Massachusetts 
environmental policy act, G. L. c. 30, §§ 61-62H. 
                     
8 Lot 88 has 122.49 feet of beachfront along Nantucket 
Sound; the town owns 6.8 miles (35,904 feet) of beaches on 
Nantucket Sound and Cape Cod Bay, as well as three rivers that 
provide navigation, fishing, and recreational use.  Miramar 
Beach thus represents a very small fraction of the length of the 
town's beaches. 
15 
 
 
 
In 2015, the Executive Office of Energy and Environmental 
Affairs investigated and reviewed the town's proposed 
comprehensive ten-year dredging and beach nourishment plan; as 
part of this process, the office reviewed written comments and 
independent reviews submitted by a number of State and Federal 
agencies, including the Board of Underwater Archaeological 
Resources, the Division of Marine Fisheries, DEP, the Division 
of Fisheries and Wildlife's natural heritage and endangered 
species program, the Cape Cod Commission, and the Massachusetts 
Office of the Federal Coastal Zone Management program of the 
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.  In its letter, 
DEP noted that its regulation, 310 Code Mass. Regs. § 9.40(4), 
requires that spoils from publicly-funded dredging projects be 
placed on public beaches.  Public comments also were solicited 
and received; some of the plaintiffs submitted comments, which 
the Secretary noted in his final report.  In October, 2015, the 
Secretary determined that the ten-year comprehensive plan was of 
public benefit, and that there was no need for the town to 
submit an environmental impact report.  The Secretary commented 
that the ten-year plan would allow the town to use the spoils of 
dredging to "nourish the highest priority areas and allow[s] for 
effective use of Town and County resources." 
 
After the determination under the environmental policy act 
that no environmental impact statement was required, the town's 
16 
 
 
comprehensive dredging and beach nourishment project was 
reviewed by the individual agencies whose permits were necessary 
to implement the ten-year comprehensive plan.  The town also 
filed the plan with the Division of Fisheries and Wildlife, as 
part of the agency's role in ensuring compliance with the 
endangered species act, G. L. c. 131A.  The Division submitted 
positive comments. 
 
In September, 2014, the town announced plans to conduct 
maintenance dredging at the mouth of Swan Pond River, under its 
then-current dredging and beach nourishment permits specific to 
Swan Pond River and West Dennis Beach.  To complete this 
dredging, the town had received a general permit from the United 
States Army Corps of Engineers in March, 2014; unlike the ten-
year permits from the DEP and the conservation commission, the 
Army Corps of Engineers permit was issued for a one-year period, 
to expire in January, 2015.  The plaintiffs again requested that 
the spoils be used to nourish Miramar Beach.  The town asserted 
that it was prohibited from doing so by 310 Code Mass. Regs. 
§ 9.40(4)(a), which requires that spoils from publically-funded 
dredging projects be used to nourish public beaches. 
 
Since the dredging in 2014, sediment has built up in the 
mouth of Swan Pond River.  Plans were in place to dredge the 
river again in 2016; that dredging did not take place, in part 
17 
 
 
because of the timing of the renewal of the permit from the Army 
Corps of Engineers, which had expired in January, 2015. 
 
c.  Prior proceedings.  This litigation was begun in 
September, 2014, two days before dredging of Swan Pond River was 
to start, when the plaintiffs commenced an action in the 
Superior Court pursuant to G. L. c. 214, § 7A, seeking a 
declaratory judgment and temporary and permanent injunctions 
preventing the town from dredging the mouth of Swan Pond River 
unless the town placed the spoils on Miramar Beach.  The 
plaintiffs sought the temporary injunction to prevent alleged 
imminent harm to the environment due to the town's planned 
dredging of Swan Pond River.  The plaintiffs claimed that the 
town would be in violation of 310 Code Mass. Regs. 310 
§ 10.27(4)(c) if it did not place the spoils from dredging Swan 
Pond River on Miramar Beach.  A Superior Court judge denied the 
plaintiffs' motion for a temporary injunction.9  In September, 
2016, the parties filed cross motions for summary judgment. 
                     
9 The Superior Court judge who denied the plaintiffs' motion 
for a temporary injunction commented in discussing the 
likelihood of success that the town had many defenses, including 
that the action was time barred.  The town did not raise any 
argument concerning the statute of limitations and did not 
suggest in the Superior Court or in its appellate filings that 
the plaintiffs' complaint was time barred.  We note, however, 
that actions under G. L. c. 214, § 7A, are subject to the 
statute of limitations applicable to the statute or regulation 
purportedly violated.  See Canton v. Commissioner of Mass. 
Highway Dep't, 455 Mass. 783, 786 (2010).  An action under the 
wetlands protection act, under which 310 Code Mass. Regs. 
18 
 
 
 
After a hearing in January, 2017, a different Superior 
Court judge allowed the plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment 
and denied the town's cross motion.  Although not an issue 
raised in the plaintiffs' complaint or in their motion for 
summary judgment, the judge determined that the town had 
triggered the obligations of 310 Code Mass. Regs. § 10.27(4)(c) 
when it repaired and lengthened the jetty in the early 1990s.10  
The judge concluded that the town violated the regulation by 
failing to add a sand bypass system to the jetty, and that the 
regulation, therefore, "creates an ongoing obligation by the 
Town, after repairing and expanding the jetty, to offset its 
adverse effects on down drift beaches such as Miramar Beach."  
In addition, the judge issued an injunction compelling the town 
"periodically [to] dredge Swan Pond River to re-nourish Miramar 
Beach pursuant to 310 Code Mass. Regs. § 10.27(4)(c)."  The 
injunction stated also that "the Town of Dennis is permanently 
enjoined from violating 310 Code Mass. Regs. § 10.27(4)(c)."  
The judge rejected the plaintiffs' contention that the town must 
                                                                  
§ 10.27 is promulgated, must be brought within two years of the 
violation.  See G. L. c. 131, § 91.  An appeal from a decision 
by an agency, pursuant to G. L. c. 30A, § 14, must be filed in 
the Superior Court within thirty days of the issuance of the 
agency's determination.  Of course, if an order of conditions 
from the extension of the jetty required the town to conduct 
some form of ongoing dredging in perpetuity, an action to 
enforce such a condition would not be time barred. 
 
10 The plaintiffs mentioned this argument in passing in 
their response to the town's cross motion for summary judgment. 
19 
 
 
renourish Miramar Beach every time that the area is dredged, 
instead concluding that the regulation only requires periodic 
renourishment; he noted also that the town has a "significant 
public interest in nourishing eroding Town-owned beaches." 
 
3.  Discussion.  a.  Standard of review.  "Summary judgment 
is appropriate where there are no genuine issues of material 
fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of 
law."  Boazova v. Safety Ins. Co., 462 Mass. 346, 350 (2012), 
citing Mass. R. Civ. P. 56 (c), as amended, 436 Mass. 1404 
(2002).  Where there is a "developed summary judgment record[, 
as] in this case, the plaintiff[s] must establish that [they 
have] a reasonable expectation of proving each element of a 
prima facie case . . . ."  Beal v. Selectmen of Hingham, 419 
Mass. 535, 541 (1995). 
 
"Our review of a motion judge's decision on summary 
judgment is de novo, because we examine the same record and 
decide the same questions of law."  Kiribati Seafood Co. v. 
Dechert, LLP, 478 Mass. 111, 116 (2017).  "In a case like this 
one where both parties have moved for summary judgment, the 
evidence is viewed in the light most favorable to the party 
against whom judgment [has entered]" (citation omitted).  
Boazova, 462 Mass. at 350. 
 
b.  Cause of action under G. L. c. 214, § 7A.  As 
discussed, G. L. c. 214, § 7A, allows a group of ten residents 
20 
 
 
to seek an injunction in the Superior Court when "damage [is] 
caused or [is] about to be caused" through actions that 
"constitute[] a violation of a statute, ordinance, by-law or 
regulation the major purpose of which is to prevent or minimize 
damage to the environment."  The wetlands protection act 
requires that projects that affect wetlands, including dredging, 
and that affect interests identified in the act, may take place 
only after receipt of a permit from an appropriate issuing body, 
here, the conservation commission.  The proponent of a project 
must provide at least twenty-one days' written notice of the 
intended action, and a public hearing must be conducted within 
twenty-one days of receipt of the notice.  G. L. c. 131, § 40.  
In granting permission for projects that affect interests 
covered by the act, if the local authority determines that the 
area of the proposed work "is significant to" specific noted 
interests, such as "to the protection of wildlife habitat" or 
"storm damage prevention," the local authority must issue such 
an order of conditions "as will contribute to the protection of 
[these] interests."11  See id.  The statute further requires that 
                     
11 General Laws. c. 131, § 40, provides, in pertinent part, 
 
"If after said hearing the conservation 
commission . . . determine[s] that the area on which the 
proposed work is to be done is significant to public or 
private water supply, to the groundwater supply, to flood 
control, to storm damage prevention, to prevention of 
pollution, to protection of land containing shellfish, to 
21 
 
 
no work may be done without "receiving and complying with [this] 
order of conditions."  Id.  Projects affecting wetlands that are 
undertaken without such a permit, or that, when executed, do not 
comply with the order of conditions, are in violation of the 
act. 
 
c.  2014 dredging project.  As stated, in their complaint, 
filed two days before dredging was scheduled to commence, the 
plaintiffs contended that the 2014 dredging project would cause 
environmental harm because it violated 310 Code Mass. Regs. 
§ 10.27(4)(c).  On appeal, however, the plaintiffs argue that 
the motion judge properly granted summary judgment on the ground 
that the town triggered application of 310 Code Mass. Regs. 
§ 10.27(4)(c) when it extended the jetty at some point in the 
early 1990s, and that these modifications created on ongoing 
                                                                  
the protection of wildlife habitat or to the protection of 
fisheries or to the protection of the riverfront area 
consistent with the following purposes:  to protect the 
private or public water supply; to protect the ground 
water; to provide flood control; to prevent storm damage; 
to prevent pollution; to protect land containing shellfish; 
to protect wildlife habitat; and to protect the fisheries, 
such conservation commission . . . shall by written order 
within twenty-one days of such hearing impose such 
conditions as will contribute to the protection of the 
interests described herein, and all work shall be done in 
accordance therewith.  If the conservation commission . . . 
make[s] a determination that the proposed activity does not 
require the imposition of such conditions, the applicant 
shall be notified of such determination within twenty-one 
days after said hearing.  Such order or notification shall 
be signed by . . . a majority of the conservation 
commission . . . , and a copy thereof shall be sent 
forthwith to the applicant and to the department." 
22 
 
 
obligation on the part of the town periodically to nourish 
Miramar Beach. 
 
On this record, we are unable determine whether any 
violation of the wetlands protection act has occurred as a 
result of the town's periodic dredging of Swan Pond River, as 
authorized under the 2010 dredging permit, or the placement of 
the spoils on West Dennis Beach, as authorized under the 2010 
beach nourishment permit.  See discussion, infra.  There is no 
evidence in the record that, by its 2010 and 2014 dredging of 
Swan Pond River, the town violated any terms of the order of 
conditions issued under the 2010 ten-year permits for the 
dredging of Swan Pond River or the 2010 ten-year permits for 
nourishment of West Dennis Beach. 
 
The 2010 permit from the conservation commission, under 
which the town conducted the challenged dredging in 2014, did 
not implicate 310 Code Mass. Regs. § 10.27(4)(c), because the 
project did not affect the construction of the jetty.  See Code 
Mass. Regs. § 10.27(4)(c) ("Any . . . jetty . . . shall be 
constructed as follows . . .").  Rather, as the town maintains, 
the dredging project applied to "land under ocean," which is 
covered by 310 Code Mass. Regs. § 10.25 rather than by 310 Code 
Mass. Regs. § 10.27(4)(c).  Consistent with his conclusion 
concerning the repair and extension of the jetty, the motion 
judge properly determined that the dredging project itself, 
23 
 
 
rather than the permits receive for the project, did not trigger 
the requirement of 310 Code Mass. Regs. § 10.27. 
 
d.  1990s jetty extension.  Before turning to the judge's 
finding that the 1990s jetty extension project implicates 
310 Code Mass. Regs. § 10.27, we reiterate that the plaintiffs' 
complaint did not allege a violation of 310 Code Mass. Regs. 
§ 10.27 arising out of the extension of the jetty in the early 
1990s.  The complaint asserted only that "[t]he dredging that 
the Town of Dennis intends to perform [the 2014 dredging], 
coupled with the Town's intent to transport the dredge material 
to an updrift beach more than a mile away, violates 310 [Code 
Mass. Regs. §] 10.27(4)(c)."12 
 
On appeal, the plaintiffs argue that we should affirm the 
allowance of their motion for summary judgment, and the 
injunctive order that the town "periodically [must] re-nourish 
Miramar Beach," because "[310 Code Mass. Regs.] § 10.27(4)(c) 
creates an ongoing obligation by the Town . . . to offset the 
adverse effect" of expanding the jetty on the east side of the 
inlet to Swan Pond River in the early 1990s.  We do not agree.  
On this record, the plaintiffs were not entitled to summary 
judgment in their favor; to the contrary, summary judgment must 
                     
12 We address the plaintiffs' substantive claims, 
notwithstanding the absence of any timely appeal to any of the 
permitting agencies involved or to the Superior Court, because 
the town does not raise any issue of timeliness in its defense. 
24 
 
 
enter for the town.13  Even if it had been timely made, and even 
if it had been raised in their complaint and in their motion for 
summary judgment, on this record, the plaintiffs have failed to 
prove an essential element of that claim. 
 
The judge found that the town's extension of the jetty in 
the 1990s created an obligation under 310 Code Mass. Regs. 
§ 10.27 requiring the town periodically to dredge the mouth of 
Swan Pond River and to deposit the spoils on Miramar Beach.  The 
regulation itself, however, imposes no such obligation on jetty 
owners.  Title 310 Code Mass. Regs. § 10.27 is a "performance 
standard" to guide local conservation commissions in issuing 
permits under the act.  Title 310 Code Mass. Regs. § 10.21 
introduces the sections that follow, 310 Code Mass. Regs. 
§§ 10.21-10.37, as "performance standards [that] are intended to 
identify the level of protection the issuing authority must 
impose in order to contribute to the protection of the interests 
of [G. L. c.] 131, § 40."  See 310 Code Mass. Regs. § 10.01(2) 
("The purpose of 310 [Code Mass. Regs. §§] 10.00 is to define 
and clarify that process by establishing standard definitions 
and uniform procedures by which conservation commissions and 
                     
13 Given our conclusion that the summary judgment record 
cannot support a conclusion that the 1990s extension of the 
jetty triggered the requirements of 310 Code Mass. Regs. 
§ 10.27, we need not decide whether the extension of an existing 
jetty, in addition to the construction of a new jetty, could 
ever trigger any obligations under 310 Code Mass. Regs. § 10.27. 
25 
 
 
[DEP] may carry out their responsibilities under [G. L.] c. 131, 
§ 40"). 
 
When determining whether to issue a permit under G. L. 
c. 131, § 40, the issuing authority (here, the conservation 
commission) is required to consider the nature of the proposed 
project and whether it would affect any of the protected 
interests.  If a project does affect those interests, the 
issuing authority must consider what, if any, conditions to 
place upon a permit such that the conditions adequately can 
protect the interests which might be affected by the proposed 
project.  See 310 Code Mass. Regs. § 10.21.  In issuing the 2010 
dredging permit, for example, the conservation commission 
referenced the act and attached four "additional conditions" to 
the permit.  It is only through the permitting process that an 
issuing authority may attach conditions to a project; 
thereafter, if a permit is issued and conditions are imposed, 
those conditions place an obligation on the applicants.  See 
310 Code Mass. Regs. § 10.21.  If the jetty extension that the 
town conducted at some point presumably after May, 1990, and 
before October, 1992, triggered the requirements of 310 Code 
Mass. Regs. § 10.27, that could be so only because of an order 
of conditions that was issued by the conservation commission at 
that point, in conjunction with a permit to extend the jetty, 
26 
 
 
prior to the undertaking of the modifications.14  Any obligation 
on the part of the town to renourish Miramar Beach would have 
been memorialized in an order of conditions issued by the 
conservation commission in conjunction with the maintenance work 
on the jetty. 
 
Nowhere in the summary judgment record, however, is there 
any information concerning a permit to repair or extend the 
jetty at any point in the 1990s (or at any other time) that 
might have been issued by the conservation commission under 
G. L. c. 131, § 40.  As the order of conditions, if one ever 
existed, is absent from the record, we are unable to determine 
whether the town ever had any obligation to renourish Miramar 
Beach as a result of its modifications to the jetty.  Contrary 
to the judge's determination, any such obligation may not flow 
directly from the regulation, and the potential source of the 
obligation -- the order of conditions -- is missing from the 
record, or may never have existed.  This gap in the record is 
                     
14 In cases where a conservation committee allows a project 
to proceed, any aggrieved parties may appeal from the decision 
to the DEP.  See 310 Code Mass. Regs. § 10.05(3)-(7).  See 
generally Mostyn v. Department of Envtl. Protection, 83 Mass. 
App. Ct. 788, 791–793 & nn.13 & 14 (2013) (owner of adjacent 
property has standing to challenge order of conditions for 
permitted activity on sand dune, which is governed by 310 Code 
Mass. Regs. § 10.28).  Such an appeal presumably would have been 
available to the plaintiffs if they wished to challenge an order 
of conditions for the early 1990s jetty project; a claim to DEP 
would have required that the plaintiffs demonstrate harm to the 
environment from the extension of the jetty or the absence of a 
sand bypass system.  See 310 Code Mass. Regs. § 10.27. 
27 
 
 
consistent with the fact that the plaintiffs did not make the 
argument upon which the judge based his decision in their 
complaint or in their motion for summary judgment.15 
 
Accordingly, the plaintiffs have failed to establish that 
the town violated a statute or regulation "the major purpose of 
which is to prevent or minimize damage to the environment," as 
would have been required to establish their claim under G. L. 
c. 214, § 7A.16  The summary judgment record does not indicate 
                     
15 If an order of conditions requiring perpetual 
renourishment of Miramar Beach by the town had been included in 
the record, the plaintiffs then would have had to overcome the 
additional requirement of showing harm to the environment from 
the failure to comply with any such order.  The town points to 
the numerous determinations by regulatory agencies that the Swan 
River dredging project and the West Dennis Beach nourishment 
project are environmentally beneficial as indicating that 
summary judgment for the plaintiffs should have been denied on 
this ground alone, a question we need not decide. 
 
16 The town argues also that the order requiring it 
periodically to renourish Miramar Beach with the spoils of 
dredging Swan Pond River conflicts with DEP's regulation on 
dredging, 310 Code Mass. Regs. § 9.40(4), which provides that, 
"in the case of a publicly-funded dredging project, [spoils from 
dredging] shall be placed on publicly-owned eroding beaches."  
It is undisputed that the dredging of Swan Pond River is 
publicly funded and that West Dennis Beach, the location at 
which the town deposited the spoils, as provided in the permit, 
is a public beach that has experienced significant erosion.  
Because of our result, we do not reach this issue.  For similar 
reasons, we need not address the town's argument that the 
procurement act, G. L. c. 30B, prevents it from depositing the 
spoils of a public dredging project on Miramar Beach, a private 
beach.  We note, however, that the procurement act applies only 
to tangible items "no longer useful to the government," and 
that, here, the spoils were useful to the town in renourishing 
West Dennis Beach as well as other town beaches.  See G. L. 
c. 30B, § 15 (a). 
28 
 
 
that the town had any obligation to renourish Miramar Beach 
under an order of conditions from the conservation commission 
issued in conjunction with a permit to expand the jetty in the 
early 1990s, or at any other time.  Given that the plaintiffs 
have failed to prove an essential element of their case, summary 
judgment must enter for the town.   See Kourouvacilis v. General 
Motors Corp., 410 Mass. 706, 716 (1981). 
 
3.  Conclusion.  The order enjoining the town periodically 
to nourish Miramar Beach is vacated and set aside.  The order 
granting summary judgment to the plaintiffs is reversed.  The 
case is remanded for entry of judgment for the defendant. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
So ordered.