LYNN — Frustration over a long-running environmental dispute was discussed at Tuesday night’s meeting of the Lynn Conservation Commission, as Chairman Mike Toomey again stepped aside from his official role to speak as a private resident about ongoing issues tied to work conducted by the Town of Lynnfield near Judge Road.
The matter centers on an enforcement order issued in November 2023 under the Massachusetts Wetlands Protection Act, concerning alterations to the Nells Pond/Cedar Creek wetlands area. According to Toomey, compliance with that order has been virtually nonexistent.
“As I have been involved in the Commission and as I’ve read the Wetlands Protection Act and the City of Lynn bylaw, an enforcement order is only appealable to Superior Court,” Toomey said. “And there’s a 60-day time limit… which has long expired.” He emphasized that, in his view, the lack of a formal appeal leaves the order fully in effect, despite what he characterized as Lynnfield’s continued inaction.
The Commission recently received a detailed letter from Lynnfield officials addressing the situation, though Toomey declined to comment on its substance in his capacity as a resident.
Instead, he questioned its purpose and legal standing, noting that prior responses have largely focused on defending actions taken on Oct. 5, 2023, rather than addressing the enforcement order itself.
“We’ve had no response to the enforcement order,” Toomey said. “We’ve had responses basically defending what actions took place… but not compliance.”
At the heart of the dispute are drainage alterations that Toomey and others argue have caused environmental damage and increased flood risks in Lynn.
He reiterated longstanding concerns that a breach in a berm and damage to a drainage pipe have redirected water flow into areas that were previously unaffected.
“The solution in Lynnfield was to break through the berm, damage the pipe, and leave the problem to the City of Lynn,” Toomey said. “I’ve seen nothing on the record that changes my opinion about where the problem was.”
He further argued that historical evidence points to the issue originating in Lynnfield, citing a lack of complaints or maintenance needs for more than 15 years following development in the Stoneybrook and Bow Ridge subdivisions.
“There was no problem for over 15 years,” he said. “So something else was behind the cause.”
Toomey also took aim at Lynnfield’s stated reasons for noncompliance, particularly claims that addressing the issue would require trespassing on private property. He dismissed that argument as insufficient.
“This Commission didn’t order them to go on private property without permission,” he stated.
“They ordered them to follow through and file a notice of intent… notifying property owners and the commission,” he added.
The chairman’s remarks also touched on broader concerns about accountability and priorities. He suggested that Lynnfield’s decision to retain outside legal counsel rather than invest in remediation signals a reluctance to resolve the issue.
“They’re putting their money into the law firm and not into repairing the damage that they did,” Toomey said.
In response, he urged the Lynn Conservation Commission to consider hiring its own attorney with expertise in wetlands law to strengthen enforcement efforts.
“We should look into the possibility of hiring an attorney that is skilled in wetlands,” he said, adding that he had a specific candidate in mind but would leave the decision to the Commission.
Commission members appeared receptive to taking additional steps. A motion was approved to request the presence of the city solicitor at the Commission’s next meeting to provide legal guidance and help clarify how to proceed.
Members also voted to continue the public hearing on the matter, allowing more time to gather information and potentially secure a response from Lynnfield officials.
Attempts to coordinate a joint meeting between Lynn and Lynnfield have so far been unsuccessful.
According to the Commission, a previously scheduled meeting was canceled, and no new date has been confirmed. Some commissioners speculated that the delay may be Lynnfield’s recent decision to retain legal counsel.
Despite the ongoing stalemate, Lynnfield’s letter expressed a willingness to work collaboratively toward a solution involving multiple stakeholders, including private property owners.
However, it also emphasized the need for shared responsibility and enforceable maintenance agreements and conditions that may complicate resolution efforts.
For Toomey, the priority remains clear: restoring the site to its original condition and preventing further harm.
“I’ll go along with almost anything to get the berm reconstructed and the pipe put back at the same elevations,” he said. “Because it’s a protection for all the people downstream.”
