Board of Health of Sturbridge v. Board of Health of Southbridge
461 Mass. 548
| Mass. | 2012Background
- SRDP operated a landfill and processing facility in Southbridge; a minor modification application was filed under G. L. c. 111, § 150A and 310 CMR 16.00.
- Public hearing held; ten citizen groups were granted party status with full intervention rights before the board.
- Board approved SRDP’s minor modification with 58 conditions on June 9, 2008; plaintiffs filed for judicial review in Superior Court on July 8, 2008.
- Judgment in 2009 affirmed the board; plaintiffs’ notice of appeal was mailed Jan 15, 2010 but not received until Jan 19, 2010; extensions were sought under Rule 4(c).
- Appeals court proceedings culminated in questions of standing to seek judicial review and timely filing; court remanded for dismissal for lack of standing while addressing merits.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Timeliness of notice of appeal | Plaintiffs timely filed or should be extended under Rule 4(c). | Notice was late and extension improper or outside authority. | Motion court validly extended time; filing timely within extended period. |
| Standing to seek judicial review | As full party interveners, plaintiffs are aggrieved and may appeal. | Intervenor status does not automatically confer aggrievement; no individualized injury shown. | Plaintiffs lacked standing as persons aggrieved; dismissal appropriate. |
| Scope of standing for citizen groups | Participation as ten-citizen groups grants standing to appeal. | Standing requires concrete, individual injury; generalized concerns insufficient. | No individualizable injury shown; standing denied. |
| Regulatory interpretation of site assignment | Facility not properly site assigned; modification should be treated as major. | Facilities located on properly site assigned land; processing is permitted as integrated use. | Record supports proper site assignment and integrated processing use. |
| Public hearing vs adjudicatory proceeding for aggrievement | Citizen groups are aggrieved due to regulatory designation and environmental impacts. | Public hearing is not an adjudicatory proceeding; aggrievement standard differs. | Public hearing designation does not automatically create aggrievement; no standing. |
Key Cases Cited
- Save the Bay, Inc. v. Department of Pub. Utils., 366 Mass. 667 (Mass. 1975) (interveners vs aggrievement in adjudicatory context)
- Andover v. Energy Facilities Siting Bd., 435 Mass. 377 (Mass. 2001) (standing considerations in siting cases)
- Commonwealth v. White, 429 Mass. 258 (Mass. 1999) (authority to extend time nunc pro tunc under Rule 4(c))
- Ginther v. Commissioner of Ins., 427 Mass. 319 (Mass. 1998) (standing requires direct injury; mere participation insufficient)
- Duato v. Commissioner of Pub. Welfare, 359 Mass. 635 (Mass. 1971) (standing requires substantial rights prejudiced)
- Boston Gas Co. v. Department of Pub. Utils., 368 Mass. 780 (Mass. 1975) (intervenors and aggrievement in agency decisions; standing limits)
- Goldberg v. Board of Health of Granby, 444 Mass. 627 (Mass. 2005) (aggrievement standards in landfill siting challenges)
- Standerwick v. Zoning Bd. of Appeals of Andover, 447 Mass. 20 (Mass. 2006) (standing as person aggrieved under zoning context)
- Harvard Law Sch. Coalition for Civ. Rights v. President & Fellows of Harvard College, 413 Mass. 66 (Mass. 1992) (standing requirements for aggrievement in context of public participation)
- Enos v. Secretary of Envt’l Affairs, 432 Mass. 132 (Mass. 2000) (participation in environmental review does not guarantee a right to challenge the decision)