Anthony Palazzolo, 87, fought all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court in 2001 for the right to build 74 cottages on 18 acres of salt marsh between Atlantic Avenue and Winnapaug Pond in Misquamicut.

He lost. But the Supreme Court and state courts all agreed he had enough dry ground for one house.

Now, nearly 50 years after he first bought his property, Palazzolo is finally building that one house.

“I love it down there,” Palazzolo said in an interview last week from his home in Westerly. “There’s nobody around. It’s great for the kids. And you can see the pond.”

View Larger Map

In fact, he’ll be able to see water in nearly every direction from the new house. The pond is to the north. Wetlands sprawl on both sides and to the south. A narrow dirt road runs from Palazzolo’s several acres of dry ground to Atlantic Avenue, and the beach lies just beyond.

Grover Fugate, executive director of the Coastal Resources Management Council, signed an “assent,” or CRMC permit, on March 31 for Palazzolo to build a three-bedroom house. Because the lot is just above sea level, and, according to CRMC, “subject to storm flooding and wash-over,” the permit specifies that no loam be brought in for a lawn.

The permit also specifies that no fertilizers or pesticides be used on the property.

Palazzolo was allowed to bring in dirt to raise the height of the septic system and create more distance between it and the surrounding water table.

Last month, a CRMC inspector warned Palazzolo that he could not raise the height of the entire lot by five feet, only the area of the septic system. He was also ordered to stop work because he had proceeded without meeting with the staff for the routine “preconstruction meeting.”

Palazzolo quickly met with the staff, and construction resumed. The CRMC did not penalize him.

Palazzolo has been battling for decades to build on the property, which was platted for 74 house lots. He planned to dredge the pond for material to fill in the wetlands. He was turned down repeatedly by various state agencies and courts.

In 2001, he asked the U.S. Supreme Court to award him $3.1 million because state environmental rules and court decisions blocked his plans to build on the salt marsh.

The 70 minutes of arguments before the nation’s highest court attracted national media attention because the case was the first in some years to explore property rights issues. In the previous big case, Lucas vs. South Carolina Coastal Council, in 1992, the court found that if regulations eliminate 100 percent of a property’s value, that amounts to a taking and the owner should be compensated.

U.S. Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse, then the state attorney general, argued on behalf of the state. Officials from dozens of other states and dozens of scientists from Rhode Island supported the state’s efforts to protect the wetlands from development.

Palazzolo was represented by a lawyer provided by a West Coast property rights group. Briefs were filed on his behalf by the American and Rhode Island Farm Bureaus, the National Home Builders Association and several property rights groups.

The Supreme Court handed down a mixed decision that agreed with some of Palazzolo’s arguments and disagreed with others. It refused to award him compensation. And it sent the case back to the Rhode Island courts for further review.

In July 2005, Superior Court Judge Edwin Gale issued a 32-page decision that once again went against Palazzolo. Gale noted that six lots from the original property had already been developed and because much of the rest were flooded by tides, they were protected by the state’s Public Trust Doctrine.

“Constitutional takings law does not compensate bad business decisions,” Gale wrote.

He wrote that Palazzolo would be better off developing the one lot on the property that is on high ground.

Reactions to Palazzolo’s building plans were mixed last week.

“Good for him,” said John M. Boehnert, a lawyer who represented Palazzolo on part of his long legal journey. He recalled attending a land-use seminar after the Supreme Court hearing where one of Palazzolo’s sons described his father as “just a guy” standing up for what he thought were his rights.

“It was really very moving,” Boehnert said.

Virginia Lee, a coastal resources manager at the University of Rhode Island who helped organize the scientific opposition to Palozzolo’s Supreme Court case, said a lot was at stake in the case — the state’s ability to protect its wetlands — and that the state scored a “huge win.”

As for Palazzolo’s current plans, she said, “If it’s a buildable lot, it’s buildable.”

Frank Golet, a University of Rhode Island wetlands biologist who taught many of the state’s wetlands regulators, said if Palazzolo is complying with stipulations set by CRMC biologists, his house should not harm the nearby wetlands. But Golet said he is concerned about cumulative impacts — Palazzolo’s house would be just one more on a pond already bordered by many houses.

Palazzolo said last week that he is in no hurry to build. He’s been bringing in fill and setting pilings for the house, but he said his architect hasn’t completed the design.

Unlike the line of houses squeezed into tiny lots along the beach, Palazzolo said his house will be on 3.6 acres, surrounded with wide open spaces that no one else can build on.

He is building it for his children, he said.

“But if I had a good offer, I’d sell it,” he said.

plord@projo.com