Roxbury wetlands commission debates re‑flagging and inspection after complaints of drums and debris

The Roxbury Wetlands Commission spent the bulk of its Sept. 10 special meeting debating how to handle a notice of violation alleging storage of drums, tires and other materials close to mapped wetlands on a private property.

Commissioners reviewed a written report and on‑site observations presented to the commission that described “a half buried 55g drum labeled lubricant,” multiple tires, drainage pipes and other stored material near mapped wetland areas. The consultant who prepared the report recommended delineating the wetlands and developing a mitigation and enhancement plan, and urged involvement of a licensed environmental professional to test soils “within and just beyond the affected areas.” The report also noted staff contacted the state spill or environmental unit (referred to in the record as “Deep”), which did not dispatch personnel because the matter was judged minimal by that office.

Why it matters: commissioners said the presence of buried drums and other stored material could indicate an environmental risk to wetland buffers and watercourses, while also raising questions about what the commission may lawfully require now that the activity at the site was permitted years earlier.

The property owner and an engineer who appeared said portions of the property had been covered by a prior permit issued to allow limited storage and to authorize a driveway and house placement. The owner told the commission he had cleared some material since receiving inquiries from staff and asserted that, under the issued permit, some of the storage and activity on the east side of his property had been allowed.

Members sharply debated next steps. Some commissioners urged the commission to require a wetlands delineation (flagging) so the 50‑foot buffer could be accurately located and any material inside that buffer could be removed; others cautioned that, under legal precedent and the stated scope of the notice of violation, the commission’s formal enforcement should be limited to whether the permit conditions were violated and not expand retroactively to today’s broader buffer expectations.

Chair Russ Derenzo framed the narrow legal question as whether the commission should stick to what the original permit authorized or demand additional changes beyond that permit. He and several commissioners agreed the immediate step should be confirmation that the permit condition for cleanup inside the originally mapped buffer had been satisfied. Members asked staff (John Cody) to inspect and confirm completion of the cleanup work and encouraged commissioners to conduct their own site visits before making further enforcement decisions.

Contentious exchanges included neighborhood concerns about potential oil staining, with one observer reporting a smell of diesel at the site on an earlier visit; other commissioners said they did not detect oil or staining during their inspections. The transcript records disagreement over whether storage on one side of the property was inside or outside the 50‑foot buffer the commission originally authorized; several commissioners said current GIS maps may be inaccurate and flagged the need for a soil scientist to mark wetland limits in the field.

No final enforcement order was issued at the meeting. The commission directed staff to verify that required cleanup tied to the original permit had been completed, encouraged on‑site inspections by members, and left open the possibility of ordering a wetlands delineation if further investigation shows materials encroach on the regulated area.

The commission also noted uncertainty about who would pay for flagging if the commission required it, and whether the state environmental office would take the matter further. Commissioners broadly agreed to adhere to the legal scope of the existing notice of violation while gathering clearer field evidence before deciding on further remedies.