Newsletter
New Guidance on Land Dedication and Article 97
August 26, 2025
Authors
Mariana Korsunsky
Director, Boston
mkorsunsky@goulstonstorrs.com+1 617 574 3584
Kevin P. O'Flaherty
Of Counsel, Boston
koflaherty@goulstonstorrs.com+1 617 574 6413
Gary M. Ronan
Director, Boston
gronan@goulstonstorrs.com+1 617 574 3593
Sydney Cramer
Associate, Boston
scramer@goulstonstorrs.com+1 617 574 0504
Joel E. Antwi
Associate, Washington, D.C.
jantwi@goulstonstorrs.com+1 617 574 0585Related Expertise
Nahant Preservation Trust, Inc. v. Northeastern University, 104 Mass.App.Ct. 698 (2024)
Nahant Preservation Trust, Inc. v. Northeastern University involved a dispute over whether a private landowner (“Northeastern”) had dedicated to the public a portion of its 20-acre campus in Nahant, Massachusetts, and therefore was subject to Article 97 of the Massachusetts Constitution which required Northeastern to obtain by a 2/3rds vote of the Legislature permission to develop the allegedly dedicated land.
In 1966, Northeastern acquired twenty acres of ocean-front land in Nahant, Massachusetts from the United States government. Up to that point, and for decades prior, the property had been used for U.S. military purposes. Northeastern acquired the property as the location of its Marine Science Center (the “MSC”). Thereafter, from 1966 on, Northeastern used the retrofitted former military buildings on the property and the undeveloped areas on the property for scientific research, including most recently, for research into the effects of climate change on the ocean and on the sea life in and around the ocean.
In 2019, Northeastern proposed to expand the MSC with new, state-of-the-art facilities. A group of citizens and, eventually, the Town of Nahant opposed the expansion and commenced a lawsuit that raised the following issues: (1) had Northeastern dedicated to the public as an ecological preserve the portion of its property where Northeastern proposed the expansion and was that part of the Northeastern Campus so-called Article 97 land of the Commonwealth; (2) did Northeastern therefore require Legislative approval to proceed with the planned expansion project; or (3) was Northeastern otherwise prohibited from developing the land under a theory of promissory estoppel.
After careful review of a record covering approximately 60 years and thousands of pages of documents, as well as affidavit testimony from numerous individuals, a Superior Court judge granted summary judgment in favor of Northeastern on all claims. Nahant appealed. The Appeals Court affirmed the judgment.
The Appeals Court affirmed the trial court’s conclusion that Northeastern had not manifested a clear, unequivocal intent permanently to surrender to the public its rights in the property that was subject to the dedication claim and, accordingly, that no dedication had occurred.
The Appeals Court also affirmed the trial court’s judgment in favor of Northeastern on the Town’s promissory estoppel claim, finding that there was no evidence that Northeastern had made any promise to preserve any portion of its land as public open space or parkland and that there was no evidence that the Town relied on the nonexistent promise to its detriment.
The case is significant as the Appeals Court’s latest statement on the somewhat arcane law of dedication and the high bar a plaintiff must clear in demonstrating that a property owner has dedicated land to public use.
Northeastern University was represented by Goulston & Storrs attorneys Kevin O’Flaherty and John White.
Related Insights
Perspective
Unlocking the Future of Build-To-Rent Housing at the Annual Build-to-Rent Forum (East)
March 28, 2024