Marielise Kelly obtained judgment on the pleadings on behalf of the historically significant Cotuit Oyster Co. Inc. foiling the NIMBY efforts of a small group of waterfront property owners who sought to overturn the Town of Barnstable’s approval of the company’s aquaculture license.
October 2, 2025 – The Barnstable Superior Court upheld a decision by the Town of Barnstable to renew the aquaculture license issued to the Cotuit Oyster Company, one of the oldest companies in operation in the United States. Cotuit Oyster Company was awarded judgment on the pleadings against the Plaintiff property owners. The Plaintiffs, a small group of waterfront property owners in the exclusive, gated community known as Oyster Harbors were also unsuccessful in asserting their objections at the local level before local regulatory authorities. The Superior Court held that the administrative decision renewing Cotuit Oyster Company’s aquaculture license was not “arbitrary and capricious” and was consistent with local aquacultural license regulations that required the town to “protect and preserve existing fisheries” while seeking to minimize impacts on other uses of the marine environment. The Court noted that there was ample evidence in the record that the oyster company’s operations did not impede recreational uses or scenic views and were consistent with M.G.L.c. 130 §57.
The Court rejected the homeowners’ claims that the Cotuit Oyster company lacked permits required for renewal of its aquaculture license and expressly rejected the homeowners’ assertion that oyster company’s floating aquaculture gear required mooring permits. The court concluded that the aquacultural gear did not require a wetlands permit under M.G.L.c. 131 §40 because the use of floating aquacultural gear fell within the “normal maintenance and improvement of land in aquaculture” under 310 CMR §10.04 and also noted that there was a lack of evidence in the record to demonstrate that there was any “altering” of the wetlands by use of the floating aquaculture gear which might trigger the need for any wetlands permit. The Court held that the administrative record contained a letter of permission from the Army Corps of Engineers that expressly permitted the use of the floating, aquacultural gear.
Finally, the Court noted that the public hearings and administrative decision at the local level was a product of a multi-level process with multiple participants and decision makers including, but not limited to, the Natural Resources hearing officer; the Shellfish Committee and the Town Manager, and the Court concluded that any claimed bias of an individual shellfish constable was significantly diluted by the multi-level administrative process such that there was inadequate evidence that the final decision was a product of bias.
Neighbors of Cotuit Narrows et al. v. Cotuit Oyster Co., Inc. et al, Barnstable Superior Court, C.A. No.: 2472 CV 00132 (The Honorable E.M. Buckley, J.)