Seeking parity in how wetland laws are applied
A double standard exists with wetland laws that are strictly enforced upon homeowners but not the town and large contractors.
We filed a complaint with the Massachusetts Superior Court because we believed Acton was violating the Wetlands Protection Act and its own Wetland Bylaws (law) on town-owned land at 1175 Elm Street, next to the rotary.
We took this action because we believe a double standard exists with wetland laws that are strictly applied and enforced upon regular homeowners but not the town and large contractors.
To that end, we sought parity in how wetland laws are applied and enforced; we did this by filing a complaint with the court using our own funds.
The court validated our concerns; it issued a preliminary injunction and required the town and MIG to submit a Notice of Intent (NOI) and receive a valid Order Of Conditions before site activity can resume.
To be clear, the town knew of these violations three years ago, in February 2023. Why not file an NOI back then as required by the law?
For that matter, why are they fighting it today? Why is the town spending our tax dollars on attorneys to avoid filing an NOI?
By the way, why didn’t we charge the contractor to use our land? Those stockpiles were part of an $18.5 million MassDOT contract; why give them free access to the land?
And why was the access agreement written on the contractor’s letterhead? Why allow them to set the terms of the agreement, and why didn’t the town require them to get insurance?
All of this is highly unusual. Hopefully the town will comply with the court decision and not fight this further.
Though I currently live in Gloucester, my wife and I grew up and raised our kids in Acton. After 33 years, we still own property there. To reiterate, all we want is parity in how the law is applied.
Miguel Echavarri
Wheeler Street, Gloucester
