A coastal, residential proposal dating back to the fall of 2021 still seeks resolution after dialogue between a neighbor and the applicant took on a personal tone during the March 23 meeting of the Marion Conservation Commission.
Applicants John and Pamela Lees filed a Notice of Intent for the reconstruction of a single-family house, including an inground swimming pool along with repair of a seawall, at 49 Water Street.
The Lees’ proposal, including the latest revision presented on March 23, has been the object of passionate scrutiny, but some remarks were made outside the purview of the Conservation Commission. Pamela Lees said she had not planned on speaking at the meeting but felt it necessary to respond.
Objecting to critical comments made by Judy Rosbe as to the applicants’ intentions, Lees pointed to her 25-year career as a general contractor including Mattapoisett-based projects such as the redesign of a nursing home into a day-care center. She said all of her projects have improved their neighborhoods.
“This is very hurtful, actually. Everything that I’ve ever done and everything that we’re doing here is by the book,” said Lees. “If there’s changes we need to make, we will certainly make them. We are using an engineer (Dave Davignon of Schneider, Davignon & Leone Inc.) that most of our neighbors have used. Certainly, he would not present anything that he did not think was appropriate.”
“Maybe we have to make changes here or there, but the personal attacks I can do without, and I think everyone can.”
Ironically, Rosbe said that in contrast to a chorus of objections made by other abutters, she had sought out to take a neutral stance but later changed her mind when she arrived at the belief that the Lees do not care what the neighbors think. As a retired lawyer who practiced full-time for 30 years, Rosbe said she always thought that the best way to resolve disagreements was to sit down and talk it out, “but it looks like in this situation the applicants are just digging in …”
Conservation Commission Chairman Shaun Walsh let Rosbe finish before reminding participants that the commission’s purview and authority is limited to ensuring proposals comply with the applicable performance standards imposed by the Wetlands Protection Act.
Acknowledging that the public hearing was not about aesthetics, Rosbe said her efforts to get Water Street onto the national historic register are nearly complete, and that scenario would render the Lees’ proposal totally out of character with the rest of the neighborhood.
Lees acknowledged meeting with Rosbe before the case became adversarial.
“As a good neighbor, I was handed a book by Mrs. Rosbe and told, ‘Pick a style from that book and things will be fine,’ an email I’m sure she wouldn’t like to be shared,” said Lees. “We just want to build a house and be good neighbors. I think the personal attacks are not appropriate. We just want to build a house for our family. That’s all we want to do, and we want to do it the right way.”
Lees called the proposal a shingle-style house that “happens to have a flat roof,” a feature she said has nothing to do with most of the people’s concerns.
Rosbe had said she considers the Lees’ extensive spending on experts to be indicative of their stance to push forward irrespective of the neighbors’ concerns.
Earlier in the public hearing, Davignon introduced a team available for questions on behalf of the applicant including Stan Humphries, coastal geologist from Environmental Consulting Restoration LLC; Bruce Jacobs, PhD in Environmental Engineering at MIT and a professional engineer; Wayne McArdle, a geotechnical consultant who holds a master’s degree from Northeastern University; along with professionals Glenn Wood; DJ Chagnen, landscape design and Steven Kelleher, architect.
“It’s unfortunate, the reason why we had to spend the money is because people want to delay the project, and so we had to defend ourselves. That’s why all this money is being spent, because people didn’t like the design of the home and looked for a way to delay the project. That’s what’s happening here,” said Lees. “It’s happening to me, it’s going to happen to someone else down the line and someone else. It’s unfortunate that people can do that, but we have to go through the process now.
“As far as I know, we live in America. As long as we follow the rules, stay in our lanes, we can build what we can build. We don’t have to have our neighbors telling us what color, what size, what shape. I would never think to tell someone else what they can do. That’s all I have to say. Thank you.”
The literal focus of the public hearing was on the coastal-bank issue, to which objections had already been raised by other abutters in line with the authority and purview of the Conservation Commission.
The town retained consultant Scott Horsley, whose October 21, 2021 letter identified three issues that Davignon and the rest of the Lees’ team sought to address.
After McArdle sought clarification on soil issues brought up by Conservation Agent Doug Guey-Lee and commissioners Marc Bellanger and Emil Assing interacted with Davignon on details pertaining to erosion controls, Horsley said the recharge is higher than estimated by the applicant’s representatives and that it is “pretty clear” more structures are planned for the site.
Referencing Section 310 CMR 10:30 (6) of the state Wetlands Protection Act, Horsley quoted a sentence that reads, “Any project on a coastal bank or within 100 feet landward of the top of such coastal bank … shall have no adverse effects on the stability of the coastal bank.”
“That’s a pretty strong performance standard,” said Horsley. “It does not say, as other environmental regulations say, ‘shall minimize impact,’ says ‘it shall have no adverse (impact).’ So the presumption here is high, and the burden of proof is on the applicant to show, literally, no adverse impact.”
He went onto site guidelines from Coastal Zone Management and suggested that the applicant’s proposal will add to four potential areas of destabilization including disturbance of vegetation, altering rates and direction of runoff and the flow of groundwater and adding weight that exceeds the coastal bank’s capacity. He said the omission of analysis of a series of dry wells much closer to the shoreline is a reason why his model shows higher impact than that of the applicant’s scientist.
In summation, Horsley recommended expansion of analysis of groundwater mounding, to re-evaluate the applicant’s model of runoff and add a third-party review of geotechnical stability of the coastal bank based on added structures.
Abutters were then given the floor.
Andy Kendall, 39 Water Street, said he had several family members on the call who were present in Marion for Hurricane Bob in 1991. Acknowledging that the total square footage of impervious surface will decrease under the site plan, “the existing structure parallels the bank whereas the proposed structure parallels Water Street.” Kendall said that together with the swimming pool, the configuration concentrates a lot of the impervious structure at the south end of the property where Kendall abuts.
“Our worry is, when you have a peak tide of 15 feet or a storm surge of 5 or 10 feet along with 7 inches of rain, our pier is completely under water, our basements are flooded, and if you think about the wave action and the velocity of the water up against the shoreline … I’m worried about where that water is going to go,” said Kendall, who asked the commissioners to consider all the recent construction in the context of an anticipated increase of frequency of stormwater events.
Doug Crocker, 60 Water Street, clarified to the commission that he is not and never has been supportive of the project and wanted that included in the minutes after what he termed “an inaccurate statement that was made by the Lees’ architect.”
David Croll said that the house proposed by the applicant is “two times” larger than anything on Water Street. “And it’s being fitted into a very constrained lot,” he said. “It almost goes from one end of the lot to the other end of the lot, which reflects (stormwater potential) Mr. Kendall was just worried about.
“It will add considerable, additional weight to the coastal bank. The foundations called for here are 2-feet thick and very deep, and of course you’ll have the added weight of a second story … so we need to know how much additional weight.”
Croll also disputed the application of FEMA mapping to the project and noted an island off the project site.
Walsh said Horsley will be submitting additional information and asked Davignon if the Lees would accept a continuance to the commission’s next meeting on Wednesday, April 13, at 7:00 pm.
Accordingly, Davignon requested a continuance and also asked the town’s representative to send any further requests through Conservation Agent Doug Guey-Lee. Davignon said the applicant will submit a revised plan ahead of the April 13 meeting to give all the stakeholders an opportunity to review it. Walsh said, “the sooner, the better” for the delivery, as the night before does not afford the commissioners or their conservation agent adequate time to prepare a response.
In other business, Sippican Lands Trust filed a Request for Determination of Applicability to build a gazebo on the upland-marsh part of the property at the SLT’s Osprey Walk that is accessed at 354 Point Road. Guey-Lee called it “a modest project” in the buffer zone, and the hearing was closed. Assing proposed a Negative Box 3 determination of applicability, and the commissioners unanimously voted to support the SLT project.
W. Dale Jones, 70 Register Road filed a Notice of Intent for the construction of a three-bedroom, single-family home, deck, driveway and septic system. The case was heard and continued to April 13 at 7:00 pm.
The commissioners discussed the plan to eradicate phragmites at 121, 125 and 129 Converse Road with resident Alanna Nelson, who was advised of some homeowners who last year formed a group to successfully file with the commission with the same intent.
The next meeting of the Marion Conservation Commission is scheduled for Wednesday, April 13, at 7:00 pm.
Marion Conservation Commission
By Mick Colageo