Conservation Commission weighs in on BJ’s Wholesale Club violation
The Conservation Commission discussed its role in enforcing a Building Department violation against BJ’s Wholesale Club at 12 Seyon St. at a meeting this week. The commission received a letter from the city’s Building Department asking if the commission had any jurisdiction over a violation regarding Walker Pond behind the BJ’s location. The majority of the pond is in Watertown, but a small area is in Waltham. There is a homeless encampment at the pond and trash in the water. The building department issued a violation to BJ’s based on these issues.
Commissioner Mike Donovan noted that because a chain-link fence separates BJ’s from the pond, there was virtually no way the trash could be blowing in from BJ’s property. Commission Vice Chair Bill Doyle concurred and said unless the trash was entering the pond through a stormwater maintenance system, there wasn’t much the commission could do. Commissioner Gerry Dufromont felt the question to the commission was an attempt to give the building department “a little more muscle” to get rid of the homeless encampment.
The commission decided it would inform the building department they were aware of the situation and, if asked, would accompany the department on a site visit.
In other business, the commission moved to:
- Continue discussion of the development of a multifamily residential complex planned for 245-265 Winter St. at its Jan. 8 meeting.
- Approve plans for the construction of two single-family houses at 125 Marlborough Road. During Thursday’s meeting, a concerned abutter claimed the construction of the houses was illegal according to a regulation within the Wetlands Protection Act. Doyle said the regulation cited did not exist and that the project was legal. Additionally, the abutter stated that if the lot were subdivided into two lots, the individual lots wouldn’t have the required frontage according to zoning regulations. Doyle said that was a question for the building department or the zoning board.
- Approve plans for the demolition and rebuilding of the current single-family house at 94 Hardy Pond Road. Despite not yet receiving comments from the city engineering department, Doyle felt the project was okay to go ahead based on his professional experience with similar drainage systems to the one being proposed.
Comments (2)
Comments are closed.

I have a quick clarification where the article says Mr Doyle stated the Wetlands Protection Act does not exist. Is that the quote or is it that it does not apply in the case? Ref: https://www.mass.gov/info-details/protecting-wetlands-in-massachusetts
Thanks!
Beth
The story states “…a concerned abutter claimed the construction of the houses was illegal according to a regulation within the Wetlands Protection Act. Doyle said the regulation cited did not exist and that the project was legal.” This indicates that the regulation which the abutter claimed was within the WPA does not exist. Doyle does not say the WPA does not exist.