Agent finds expanded wetland encroachment at 29 Country Club Lane; missing certificate of compliance complicates remedy

City conservation staff told the Brockton Conservation Commission on Aug. 20 that construction at 29 Country Club Lane does not match the 2017 approved plan, and the commission should consider a new enforcement order requiring additional restoration and/or modification to bring the property into compliance.

Why it matters: The commission’s 2017 order had permitted a specific limit of work with on‑site wetland replication to offset impacts. The agent reported the as‑built site includes an elevated patio and substantial retaining wall that appear not to match the recorded approval and that there is no recorded certificate of compliance in the registry of deeds or in commission minutes associated with the project.

Agent Kyle summarized his finding: the “site plan that was approved by the commission is not what was ultimately built here,” and the apparent additional encroachment means the previously approved replication areas are not sufficient to offset the disturbance. He told commissioners he reviewed meeting minutes back to the 2017 approval, searched city records and the registry of deeds, and was unable to find a recorded certificate of compliance for the project.

Technical and legal issues: The commission’s enforcement letter reminded members that direct impacts to a wetland typically require at minimum a 1:1 on‑site wetland replication, commonly increased by local orders to allow for a margin of error in success. The 29 Country Club Lane parcel is constrained and the agent said there appears to be no space on the parcel to add the replication area that would now be required if the patio and wall remain. The agent advised the commission that the next enforcement step would likely be a new enforcement order requiring corrective work; he said he had prepared draft enforcement language and would consult with the city law office.

Who is responsible: The agent noted the work that created the elevated patio and wall appears to have been done by the developer during construction, not by a later owner, but the current homeowner is the party on title and would be the practical recipient of a civil enforcement order. Kyle advised the commission that historically the commission has required property owners to correct violations, and that a separate civil action between the homeowner and the developer would be the homeowner’s remedy to seek cost recovery. He said he would research whether the commission could also target the original developer for enforcement and will consult with the law office and outside resources (Massachusetts Association of Conservation Commissions/MACC) before the September meeting.

Next steps: The commission did not vote to issue an enforcement order at the meeting; Kyle will pursue legal guidance and return to the commission in September with options and recommended language. The commission discussed potential complexity in splitting remedial responsibility between a homeowner and a developer if separate orders were issued, because corrective construction itself could further disturb wetland areas and would need to be coordinated.

Clarifying details: the agent confirmed the originally permitted plan and the as‑built construction show substantive differences; he showed a photograph of a retaining wall several feet high adjacent to the patio. The commission will not undertake an on‑site inspection without property‑owner permission or a court order; the agent will consult the law department and report back at the next meeting.