Documents from the legal and administrative proceedings

The following sections contain documents from the several administrative and legal stages. The sections are ordered from most to least recent, so that the most current items are near the top of the page, but the documents within a section are roughly in chronological order (so that it is easier to follow the individual stories).

Supreme Judicial Court

After the Superior Court decision, the Boston Redevelopment Authority appealed directly to the Supreme Judicial Court (the Massachusetts Supreme Court).

1. BRA brief: Brief of the Boston Redevelopment Authority arguing that land taken for urban renewal, including Long Wharf, is not subject to Article 97---thus, that it may be changed to a new, non-park use without legislative authorization.

2. DEP brief, DEP brief appendices: Brief of the Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) arguing (in the main) that the license does not create an Article 97 land disposition, and thus that it was legal for DEP to issue the license to the BRA to convert part of Long Wharf to a restaurant.

Superior Court

After losing in the OADR (Office of Appeals and Dispute Resolution), the plaintiffs appealed to the Superior Court. This phase lasted from February 2010 until June 2011.

1. Complaint stating the issues and starting the Superior Court appeal.

2. Plaintiffs' main brief

3. BRA's response to plaintiff's main brief/arguments

4. BRA's additional response to plaintiffs' main brief/arguments

5. Plaintiffs' response to BRA's additional response

6. Plaintiffs' brief arguing that Long Wharf was taken for article 97 purposes

7. Plaintiffs' brief arguing that land taken for urban renewal can also be protected by Article 97

8. Plaintiffs' additional exhibits and references relevant to Article 97 protection of the site

9. Judgment by Judge Fahey, June 2011, voiding the waterways license because (1) Long Wharf is protected by Article 97, and (2) the license counted as an Article 97 disposition.

Office of Appeals and Dispute Resolution (OADR)

The procedure for challenging a waterways (Chapter 91) license is to file an appeal with the DEP's Office of Appeals and Dispute Resolution (OADR). This appeal lasted from October 2008 until January 2010.

1. Plaintiffs' initial challenge to the waterways (Chapter 91) license, starting the OADR process.

2. OADR scheduling order

3. BRA's pre-hearing statement

4. Plaintiffs' pre-hearing statement

5. OADR presiding officer's conference report

6. Plaintiffs' brief for the OADR process

7. Plaintiff Mahajan's pre-filed testimony

8. Plaintiff Mahajan's rebuttal testimony

9. BRA's brief

10. BRA witnesses' pre-filed testimony

11. DEP's brief

12. DEP witness's testimony

13. Plaintiffs' proposed findings of fact and law

14. OADR presiding officer's recommended final decision affirming the Chapter 91 license (allowing the BRA to lease the end of Long Wharf to a late-night restaurant and bar).

Chapter 91 (waterways) license

The applicant, the Boston Redevelopment Authority, applied to the Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) for a Chapter 91 (waterways) license to enlarge and enclose the shade pavillion at the end of Long Wharf in Boston, in order to build a late-night restaurant and bar. The written determination was given in September 2008.

1. EOEA Secretary's certificate on the Environmental Notification Form

2. DEP's written determination on the license application, stating that it would award the license if no appeals were filed within 21 days