Haney as Trustee of Gooseberry Island Trust v. Town of Mashpee

Decision Date22 March 2022
Docket NumberCIVIL ACTION NO. 21-10718-JGD
Parties Matthew HANEY, AS TRUSTEE OF the GOOSEBERRY ISLAND TRUST, Plaintiff, v. TOWN OF MASHPEE, and Jonathan Furbush, William Blaisedell, Scott Goldstein, Norman Gould, Bradford Pittsley, and Sharon Sangeleer, as they are members and are collectively the Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Mashpee, Defendants.
CourtU.S. District Court — District of Massachusetts

Paul Revere, III, Law Offices of Paul Revere, III, Centerville, MA, for Plaintiff.

Douglas I. Louison, Joseph A. Padolsky, Louison, Costello, Condon & Pfaff, LLP, Boston, MA, for Defendants.

MEMORANDUM OF DECISION AND ORDER ON DEFENDANTSMOTION TO DISMISS

DEIN, U.S.M.J.

I. INTRODUCTION

Plaintiff Matthew Haney ("Haney"), as Trustee of the Gooseberry Island Trust ("Trust"), has brought this action against the Town of Mashpee ("Mashpee" or the "Town") and the members of its Zoning Board of Appeals ("ZBA") pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging an unconstitutional regulatory taking of private property under the Fifth Amendment of the United States Constitution (Count I), and asking this court to exercise its supplemental jurisdiction over a claim of inverse condemnation under Article X of the Massachusetts Constitution and state common law (Count II). This is the latest in a series of administrative and court proceedings initiated by Haney relating to his attempt to construct a home on Gooseberry Island.

This matter is presently before the court on "DefendantsMotion to Dismiss Plaintiff's Complaint" (Docket No. 8), by which the defendants are seeking dismissal of the complaint pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim. The critical issue raised by the motion is whether Haney's claims are sufficiently ripe for this court to exercise jurisdiction. For the reasons detailed herein, the allegations of the complaint establish that no "final" decision has been reached on Haney's applications, and that the government has not "reached a conclusive position." Pakdel v. City & Cty. of San Francisco, Cal., ––– U.S. ––––, 141 S. Ct. 2226, 2228, 2231, 210 L. Ed. 2d 617 (2021) (per curiam). Consequently, Haney's claims are not ripe for adjudication and the motion to dismiss is ALLOWED.

II. STATEMENT OF FACTS
Scope of the Record

Motions to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6) test the sufficiency of the pleadings. Thus, when confronted with a motion to dismiss, the court accepts as true all well-pleaded facts and draws all reasonable inferences in favor of the plaintiff. Cooperman v. Individual, Inc., 171 F.3d 43, 46 (1st Cir. 1999). Dismissal is only appropriate if the complaint, so viewed, fails to allege "a plausible entitlement to relief." Rodriguez-Ortiz v. Margo Caribe, Inc., 490 F.3d 92, 95 (1st Cir. 2007) (quoting Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 559, 127 S. Ct. 1955, 1967, 167 L. Ed. 2d 929 (2007) ).

"The plausibility inquiry necessitates a two-step pavane." Garcia-Catalan v. United States, 734 F.3d 100, 103 (1st Cir. 2013). "First, the court must distinguish ‘the complaint's factual allegations (which must be accepted as true) from its conclusory legal allegations (which need not be credited).’ " Id. (quoting Morales-Cruz v. Univ. of P.R., 676 F.3d 220, 224 (1st Cir. 2012) ). "Second, the court must determine whether the factual allegations are sufficient to support ‘the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.’ " Garcia-Catalan, 734 F.3d at 103 (quoting Haley v. City of Boston, 657 F.3d 39, 46 (1st Cir. 2011) ) (additional citation omitted). This second step requires the reviewing court to "draw on its judicial experience and common sense." Garcia-Catalan, 734 F.3d at 103 (quoting Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 679, 129 S. Ct. 1937, 1950, 173 L. Ed. 2d 868 (2009) ). "If the factual allegations in the complaint are too meager, vague, or conclusory to remove the possibility of relief from the realm of mere conjecture, the complaint is open to dismissal." Morales-Cruz, 676 F.3d at 224 (quoting SEC v. Tambone, 597 F.3d 436, 442 (1st Cir. 2010) ). Finally, while the court's inquiry is focused on the sufficiency of the allegations of the complaint, courts may consider official public records, documents central to plaintiff's claims, and documents sufficiently referred to in the complaint without converting the inquiry to one of summary judgement. Watterson v. Page, 987 F.2d 1, 3 (1st Cir. 1993).

Applying these principles, the relevant facts are as follows.

Background

The property at the center of the dispute, Gooseberry Island, is an island spanning approximately four acres in Popponesset Bay offshore from the end of Punkhorn Point Road in Mashpee (the "Island" or "Subject Property"). (Compl. (Docket No. 1) ¶¶ 2, 8, 24). In 1955, Niles Nelson purchased the Island from Fields Point Manufacturing Company as an investment. (Id. ¶ 10). The Subject Property stayed in the Nelson family until 2011, at which point Robert Nelson Jr., Niles’ grandson, conveyed title to Robert Emmeluth, as trustee of the Gooseberry Island Trust, for $1,315,000. (Id. ¶¶ 13-18). Haney, the plaintiff in the instant case, later succeeded Emmeluth as trustee. (Id. ¶ 20). The Subject Property had primarily been used as a camp for hunting and fishing prior to its conveyance to the Trust. (Id. ¶ 22). The only structure on the Island is the remnants of the foundation of a cottage. (Id. ¶ 23).

The Island is separated from the mainland by a narrow channel that fluctuates between forty and eighty feet wide depending on the high-water mark. (Id. ¶ 25). The channel's depth is less than two feet at mean low water. (Id. ¶ 26). Haney claims he has rights in the property at the end of Punkhorn Point Road through a separate trust, the SN Trust, allowing him to travel along this private road, across the property at the end, then to the water, and across the water of Popponesset Bay to the Subject Property. (Id. ¶ 27).1 In 1908, the Board of Harbor and Land Commissioners Court had issued a license to construct a bridge from the mainland at the end of Punkhorn Point Road to the Island. (Id. ¶ 31). As detailed herein, no bridge has been built, and at the time Haney acquired the Subject Property, and today, the Island is accessed by wading across the channel. (Id. ¶ 28).

In 1960, a Mashpee Special Town Meeting placed Gooseberry Island within the R-150 Residence zone. (Id. ¶ 46). By 1985, after several amendments to the Mashpee zoning bylaws, the owner of Gooseberry Island needed a variance to build a house on the property unless the owner constructed a bridge and a road to provide frontage. (Id. ¶¶ 48-55). In 1998, Mashpee classified Gooseberry Island as "Lands of Conservation and Recreation Interest" in the Town's Local Comprehensive Plan, and in 2008, it was classified as "Private Land of Conservation Interest" in the Town's Open Space, Conservation and Recreation Plan. (Id. ¶¶ 56-57). The zoning restrictions and classifications were in effect at the time Haney acquired the Subject Property in 2011.

The Mashpee Wampanoag Tribe

On May 23, 2007, the Mashpee Wampanoag Tribe ("Tribe") gained federal recognition and subsequently entered into negotiations with the Town of Mashpee for the execution of an intergovernmental agreement ("IGA") between the Town and the Tribe. (Id. ¶¶ 58-59). During the special town meeting in which the Mashpee Board of Selectmen approved an article to enter into an agreement with the Tribe, a separate article was offered to

see if the Town will vote to authorize the Board of Selectmen to convey, grant and/or release to the Mashpee Wampanoag Tribe of Massachusetts (the "Tribe") the Town's title, rights, or interest it (sic) and to the following described parcels of real property, to file such petitions with the Massachusetts General Court as may be necessary to effect this conveyance, grant or release, and to execute any and all instruments necessary to convey, grant and for release the Town's title, interest or rights, upon such terms and conditions as the Board of Selectmen shall deem to be in the interest of the Town; provided, that the Town and the Tribe shall have first executed an Inter-Governmental Agreement specifically providing the terms of disposition of the subject title, rights and/or interests: .... Parcel Seven: The parcel containing 4.6 acres, more or less, identified on Assessors Map 106, located off of Punkhorn Point and Gooseberry Island, currently utilized as a Wampanoag Aquaculture/Shellfish Farm site ... Parcels Seven and Eight are Wampanoag Shellfish Farms located in Popponesset Bay which, have, for several years been cultivated, maintained and harvested by the Tribe pursuant to licenses and permits granted by the Town. The Town has agreed in the Intergovernmental Agreement to convey to the Tribe any right, title or interest of the Town in these two parcels for continued aquaculture/ shellfish farm use and/or to support steps necessary for these parcels to be taken into trust for this purpose.

(Id. ¶¶ 60-62 (emphasis in original)).

Parcel Seven, as described in the article, includes the state-owned waters that surround Gooseberry Island. (Id. ¶ 63). Upon consideration of the article, Mashpee's town counsel acknowledged that the Town had "no legal right or ability to interfere with any rights or interests of private property owners or the Commonwealth in these areas," and Parcel Seven was subsequently removed from the article, which ultimately passed. (Id. ¶¶ 64-65). Mashpee and the Tribe formally entered into the IGA on April 22, 2018. (Id. ¶ 66). The IGA includes language that pledges Mashpee to "support all necessary steps to have [Parcel Seven] acquired in trust for the Tribe." (Id. ¶ 67).

2013 Variance Applications and Initial Bridge Denial

On or about August 29, 2013, the Trust applied for three variances to Mashpee's zoning bylaws: (1) Section 174-12 – frontage on a street, (2) Section 174-31 – 150 Feet of frontage on a street, and (3) Section 174-32...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT