ConCom ‘frustrated’ with Rt. 123 home builder

By Rick Collins & Nicholas Colvino

Conservation Commission members say their patience is running thin with a local builder who they feel ignored pages of special conditions while building a multi-family house on a controversial plot along Brockton Avenue. 

“We’re frustrated from a board perspective because you ignored all our directions,” Commissioner Kathy Creighton told representatives of Mento Corp., the Braintree-based developer. 

Commissioners back in 2021 approved the project but required it to meet 68 conditions to protect the abutting wetlands and stream. At its last meeting, the commission accused the developer of failing to meet several of those conditions, including grading the land differently than approved, adding landscaping features that weren’t approved, failing to submit a planting plan, and constructing a new deck partially within a setback.

“Any changes were to come before us,” said Commission Chairman Paul Bunker.

A representative for the builder, Patrick Burke, acknowledged that the home was not built in accordance with the conservation permit.

“We admit our guilt,” he said. “We’ll make it right.”

Mento Corp. had asked the commission to vote that it had met most of the conditions of its permit, which is typical as a construction project winds down. 

But the commission not only declined to take that vote but said it may actually consider at its meeting this week whether to start levying fines under an old enforcement action placed on the site back in 2021. 

In 2021, the commission’s former chairman said plans to build a house on the lot didn’t need full commission review because it met all wetlands rules, despite state GIS maps showing a stream along the property’s western edge. Mento razed the existing home on the property – which included a small photography supply shop – and started building the foundation. The foundation filled with water shortly afterward. Other commission members then pressured the then-chairman to reverse his earlier decision, place the site under an enforcement order, and make the project undergo a full review. The board chairman resigned later that year. 

Commission member Lynne Mullen, who was on the board during the initial review, pushed her fellow board members to set strict compliance deadlines and consider levying fines. 

“Either they read the conditions and said ‘whatever,’ or they didn’t read them at all,” she said.

One issue identified by the commission is that the yard is graded differently than what was approved. 

Ken Thompson, a botanist for the builder, said the grading changes were required because of the amount of ledge located on the site. However, in response to questions asked by the commission, Thompson said he didn’t know how deep under the topsoil the ledge started, or whether it was ledge or the foundation of the previous house. He said he would drive some iron rods into the ground and see where the ledge starts. 

The commission said they also found large stabilizing boulders, known as rip-rap, along the edge of the property; the rip-rap was not part of the approved plan. In addition, Mento Corp. was supposed to submit a planting plan for the wetland replication area, the commission said; instead the company went ahead without board approval and installed the plantings, most of which have since died.   

Also, part of a rear patio and staircase is located within the stream’s 200-foot protective buffer, the commission said. 

The commission said it will be hiring a consultant to review and evaluate the changes. Representatives from Mento Bros. will be back in front of the commission on April 27.