Boston — The panel reviewed an appeal by Resi LLC after a local conservation commission denied a proposed pier, finding potential permanent loss of significant shellfish habitat; the Department of Environmental Protection later issued a superseding order approving the project subject to conditions.

Kim Crowe, representing Resi and a special receiver, argued the commission relied on an erroneous reading of the local bylaw and overstated impacts. Crowe noted that DEP and Division of Marine Fisheries reviewed the application and approved it under state performance standards and that the exact area at issue is treated differently under local definitions of ‘‘significant shellfish habitat’’ versus the broader phrase "land containing shellfish."

Wareham counsel Richard Bowen and others argued the local commission permissibly considered adjacent‑area impacts (boats that will use the dock, ingress and egress) and that the administrative record included communications and mapping supporting the denial. The bench also questioned whether the trial judge relied on reasons not explicitly stated by the commission and whether Volpi and other precedent require deference to the commission’s denial.

The panel took the matter under advisement after extended questioning about the proper scope of local bylaws, what the record supports, and the consequences of DEP preemption where state and local standards diverge.