Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the 316 New Boston Modification topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Commission presses for formal amendment after developer proposes fill at isolated wetland
Summary
Presenters for a redevelopment at 316 New Boston St. sought approval of a minor modification to regrade with surplus fill and add landscaping, but commissioners said the proposed filling of an isolated vegetated wetland (Wetland D) warrants a formal amendment and asked the applicant to explore options to avoid filling and to file an amendment and legal notice.
Representatives for FRH Realty LLC/Fairfield Residential presented a request on Dec. 5 to approve a minor modification to the redevelopment at 316 New Boston St. (MassDEP file #348‑00835). Consultants said excess soil from construction would be used to regrade two locations to add screening and landscape buffering and that one feature they identified (Wetland D) is an isolated vegetated wetland the presenters considered non‑jurisdictional under state and local wetland rules. Presenters referenced recent U.S. Supreme Court decisions that narrowed federal jurisdiction and said the feature is not regulated by the Army Corps of Engineers.
Commissioners pressed the applicant on technical points: whether soil must be removed from the site (presenters said removal is permitted but costly), how much grade change would occur (presenters said roughly 5 feet in one area and up to 10 feet on the Wilmington side), and what planting and runoff mitigation would be provided. The applicant said the seeding would use a New England Conservation wildlife mix and that they plan to add trees and shrubs such as Norway spruce, eastern white pine and dogwoods.
Several commissioners said the requested work—particularly filling a wet area that had been left open in the original plan—amounts to a substantive change to the Order of Conditions and should be filed as an amendment rather than handled as a minor modification. Commissioners expressed concern that filling the isolated area could alter drainage characteristics, cut off connections to adjacent parcels, and reduce the commission’s leverage to ensure adequate mitigation. Presenters said they considered the change minor because the area is largely outside jurisdictional buffer zones and does not add impervious surface; they agreed to explore design options to avoid filling and said they would file a formal amendment and legal notice if the commission prefers.
By the end of the discussion commissioners signaled a consensus (4 of 4 present) that they would favor an amendment and asked the applicant to file it, provide the required legal notice and coordinate with staff. The applicant agreed to look at options to avoid filling the isolated wetland and to repackage the materials into an amendment request.
