The Legal Fight

The Plaintiffs’ Complaint

Plaintiffs are alleging that the defendants have been conducting massive industrial earthmoving and stockpiling operations in and around protected wetlands at 1175 Elm Street in Concord without the legally required environmental permits.
Investigations and complaints from residents revealed that the heavy machinery and massive dirt piles were placed directly into protected resource areas, including an intermittent stream and bordering vegetated wetlands, as well as their regulated 100-foot “buffer zones”.
In late 2025, the Town’s own Natural Resources Commission (NRC) confirmed the residents’ concerns by issuing a “Positive Determination,” which officially stated that the work required a formal Notice of Intent and a permit.
Despite the NRC’s findings, the Town and MIG have reportedly refused to submit the required legal permits for the removal and restoration work, claiming that such work is exempt or can be handled as an “administrative” matter.
The residents are asking the court to immediately stop all activity at the site until the defendants comply with the law, obtain the necessary permits, and follow a court-approved plan to preserve evidence and restore the wetlands site.

Delia’s response?

Addressing these violations through an Enforcement Order rather than a formal permitting process is the most effective way to protect our wetlands.

Requiring a Notice of Intent would trigger months of procedural delays and potential appeals, whereas our current path ensures the immediate, professional removal of the material.

Completing this work while the ground is frozen is environmentally ideal to prevent erosion.

Delaying restoration simply to preserve the stockpile as ‘evidence’ only increases the risk of further harm to the site.

The Town of Concord’s response?

The Town and the NRC have properly exercised their discretion to fix this violation through an Enforcement Order, which provides the same environmental protections as a formal permit but without months of unnecessary procedural delays.

The state is just days away from completing a professionally overseen restoration plan that safely removes the soil while the ground is frozen.

Stopping this work now for a ‘procedural box’ would not only reward the Plaintiffs’ failure to provide proper legal notice but would actually risk the very environmental harm they claim to prevent.

MIG’s response?

MIG is claiming they completed the site cleanup and restoration exactly as mandated by the NRC.

Its current work is strictly and exclusively to comply with the Enforcement Order.

MIG has already removed approximately two-thirds of the material and expects to be completely finished shortly.

MIG is not placing any new fill or expanding our footprint; it is simply following a professional plan overseen by a wetland scientist to restore the site.

Stopping MIG now would be counterproductive, as it would disrupt the crews and leave the unauthorized material on-site longer than the law intended.

The Outcome?

Associate Justice Brent Tingle orders all work to stop at the dumping site and a former Notice of Intent and Order of Conditions be filed – despite what the town and state claim.

…

The law is clear: one cannot use an Enforcement Order to bypass the formal permitting process required by the Wetlands Protection Act.

Because these industrial activities took place within protected resource areas, the defendants must stop all work immediately.

Defendents are required to file a formal Notice of Intent and may not resume any remediation or hauling until they have obtained a valid Order of Conditions.

Furthermore, every document and communication regarding activities at this site must be preserved to ensure full accountability going forward.

Want to see the site as it exists today? Watch this video from a Concord resident:

Memorandum of Law in Support of the Temprorary Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction

The Legal Fight

The Plaintiffs’ Complaint

Plaintiffs are alleging that the defendants have been conducting massive industrial earthmoving and stockpiling operations in and around protected wetlands at 1175 Elm Street in Concord without the legally required environmental permits.

Investigations and complaints from residents revealed that the heavy machinery and massive dirt piles were placed directly into protected resource areas, including an intermittent stream and bordering vegetated wetlands, as well as their regulated 100-foot “buffer zones”.

In late 2025, the Town’s own Natural Resources Commission (NRC) confirmed the residents’ concerns by issuing a “Positive Determination,” which officially stated that the work required a formal Notice of Intent and a permit.

Despite the NRC’s findings, the Town and MIG have reportedly refused to submit the required legal permits for the removal and restoration work, claiming that such work is exempt or can be handled as an “administrative” matter.

The residents are asking the court to immediately stop all activity at the site until the defendants comply with the law, obtain the necessary permits, and follow a court-approved plan to preserve evidence and restore the wetlands site.

Delia’s response?

Addressing these violations through an Enforcement Order rather than a formal permitting process is the most effective way to protect our wetlands.

Requiring a Notice of Intent would trigger months of procedural delays and potential appeals, whereas our current path ensures the immediate, professional removal of the material.

Completing this work while the ground is frozen is environmentally ideal to prevent erosion.

Delaying restoration simply to preserve the stockpile as ‘evidence’ only increases the risk of further harm to the site.

The Town of Concord’s response?

The Town and the NRC have properly exercised their discretion to fix this violation through an Enforcement Order, which provides the same environmental protections as a formal permit but without months of unnecessary procedural delays.

The state is just days away from completing a professionally overseen restoration plan that safely removes the soil while the ground is frozen.

Stopping this work now for a ‘procedural box’ would not only reward the Plaintiffs’ failure to provide proper legal notice but would actually risk the very environmental harm they claim to prevent.

MIG’s response?

MIG is claiming they completed the site cleanup and restoration exactly as mandated by the NRC.

Its current work is strictly and exclusively to comply with the Enforcement Order.

MIG has already removed approximately two-thirds of the material and expects to be completely finished shortly.

MIG is not placing any new fill or expanding our footprint; it is simply following a professional plan overseen by a wetland scientist to restore the site.

Stopping MIG now would be counterproductive, as it would disrupt the crews and leave the unauthorized material on-site longer than the law intended.

The Outcome?

Associate Justice Brent Tingle orders all work to stop at the dumping site and a former Notice of Intent and Order of Conditions be filed – despite what the town and state claim.

…

The law is clear: one cannot use an Enforcement Order to bypass the formal permitting process required by the Wetlands Protection Act.

Because these industrial activities took place within protected resource areas, the defendants must stop all work immediately.

Defendents are required to file a formal Notice of Intent and may not resume any remediation or hauling until they have obtained a valid Order of Conditions.

Furthermore, every document and communication regarding activities at this site must be preserved to ensure full accountability going forward.

Want to see the site as it exists today? Watch this video from a Concord resident:

Memorandum of Law in Support of the Temprorary Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction