The contentious case of John and Pamela Lees’ proposal to build a house at 49 Water Street went from public hearing to action item after a July 13 public hearing of the Marion Conservation Commission failed to generate a conclusion.
The many-times-continued public hearing to vet the applicant’s Notice of Intent for reconstruction of a single-family house, an inground swimming pool and repair of a seawall was finally closed by the commission at the Lees’ request, as delivered by representative Dave Davignon of Schneider, Davignon & Leone, Inc.
The timing of that request did not sit well with the commissioners, who were handed a revised plan and the abutters’ reaction thereto only days before the July 13 public hearing.
Led by Conservation Commission Chairman Jeff Doubrava, the members tabled their vote with plans to render a decision as an action item at the July 27 public meeting.
Failure to do so at that time would empower the Lees to appeal directly to state authorities in appeal of the commission’s inaction, but the membership expressed confidence a decision is forthcoming once adequate time is taken to digest the late submissions from both the applicant and the abutters.
Since the public hearing was closed on July 13, no further information can be considered unless it is administrative in nature and not substantial to the case.
The July 13 public hearing was two sided, Davignon’s presentation of revised plans on the Lees’ behalf being buttressed by three professional experts. After that, abutter David Croll read from a prepared statement because their expert consultants and attorney were unable to attend on short notice.
In summarizing the changes to the site plan, Davignon compared the utilities of the 1966 construction, which are below the flood-basement level, along with a first floor that is also noncompliant, would be replaced by a new, compliant dwelling elevated in Flood Zone AE Elevation-15. The first-floor requirement is plus 1 foot and is proposed at plus-1.25 feet.
The new house would sit above a 35,000 cubic foot crawl space, which equates to 264,000 gallons of water.
The boathouse will be reconstructed out of the velocity zone and shifted to the “A Zone.” The proposal includes a swimming pool with various pervious patios and a pervious driveway. Roof runoff will be directed to the recharge system located in front of the house.
The house will cover 21.5 percent of the lot, part of a total 28.3 percent of impervious lot coverage including the boathouse.
Revisions since the last public hearing include what Davignon described as an extensive redesign.
“In an effort to make the neighbors happy, they’ve downsized the house, they’ve changed the design of the house including the roof and the outside look,” he said.
The setback was extended from the abutters from the prior 20 feet to 30, and the driveway and lower-level patios were reconfigured.
Geotechnical consultant Wayne McArdle, stormwater engineer Bruce Jacobs and coastal geologist Stan Humphries also spoke on the applicant’s behalf.
McArdle reported on analysis of the land where the pool, deck, slopes and seawall are located. The seawall was evaluated for rotational stability.
“Considering the height of new fill behind the wall, we produced a cross section from the new pool down to the existing seawall to demonstrate typical stresses that might be imposed on the coastal bank due to the new pool and grade changes. And we also addressed neighbors’ concerns about potential scour,” explained McArdle. “Briefly, what we found is that the site of the new building and the coastal bank are composed of a deposit commonly known as glacial till.
“Within the Marion quadrangle, glacial till is the most widespread glacial deposit in the subsurface. It was laid down directly on the bedrock. Anybody here’s ever tried to dig a septic system knows what I’m talking about.”
McArdle said glacial till has “excellent strength properties” and said the commercial building code allows up to 10 tons of vertical bearing pressure on glacial till. In New England, only bedrock is stronger. He said any scour (localized erosion via flooding or wave action) would not affect neighboring properties.
“After looking at all this data, I see nothing currently proposed that would exceed the coastal bank’s capacity, cause slumping, landslides or other slope failures as defined by the Coastal Zone Manual,” said McArdle.
Jacobs, who was brought into the project to respond to concerns raised by Scott Horsley regarding the potential impacts of mounding in the coastal bank, said that analysis indicates an annual increase in the recharge area that he considers consistent with standard stormwater-management practices. Impacts at the water table at the retaining wall he found to be 2 inches.
Judith Rosbe, an abutter to the Lees’ land, was briefly allowed the floor to ask if the “contemporary plans” include the removal of 5 feet of soil to be replaced by more compact soil.
McArdle answered that the amount varies throughout the site depending on what materials might be considered unsuitable to sit under the new structure, but he estimated that there are areas requiring the replacement of soils 2, 4 or even 5-feet deep, preferably with on-site material. McArdle said there may be some import such as crushed stone, but the plan is to use as much on-site material as possible.
In reporting his analysis of floodplain management, Humphries said the neighbors’ houses sit 60 to 85 feet landward from the Lees’ project and that plans on site for vegetation will absorb what would be a “slow and incremental” movement of water landward.
The revision to a smaller footprint ensures that no scouring will occur on the abutters’ property as a result of the house the Lees proposed, he said.
After his analysis, Humphries concluded that the work will not destabilize the coastal bank and should be approved. Of the project-team experts hired by the Lees, Humphries said, “Their work in my opinion has been the most thorough and complete that I’ve seen on a single-family residential project in my career.”
After more questions and answers with the commissioners, David Croll, 10 Lewis Street, spoke on behalf of the neighbors. Because the revised plan was not acquired until two days before the meeting, Croll sought to summarize the responses of the abutters’ official representatives who could not attend the meeting.
Citing a plan that “calls for major alterations on or within 100 feet of the coastal bank,” Croll read a description placing patios, parts of the grass putting green, half of the swimming pool and site grading on top of the coastal bank, with most of the 190-foot-long, 10,000 square-foot house, garage, part of the driveway, part of the boathouse, the putting green, patio and walkway and part of the swimming pool within 100 feet.
Croll argued that regulations require no adverse impact on the coastal bank, “not 20 percent, not 40 percent.”
“It defies logic that none of what’s proposed will have any adverse impact, which the Wetland Act requires to be the case,” he said.
In reading from a Coastal Zone Management manual issued by the state presumably meant to establish guidelines to reckoning with the Wetlands Protection Act, Croll noted that many of the features included in the Lees’ proposal such as pools, patios and decks are to be located as far landward as possible per the power of the local Conservation Commission.
Croll cited Horsley’s and Robert Stevens’ April letters confirming that the proposed project will destabilize the coastal bank.
According to Croll, the abutters’ consultants believe the project will cause a 20-47 percent increase in groundwater recharge, resulting in higher water-table conditions. He said review shows that a more landward pool and a shorter house would lessen impact.
Croll relayed several abutters’ requests of the commission for the next hearing, including the following requirements: a redesign relocating all structures as landward as possible; plans for retaining walls, citing potential storm surge; analysis of coastal storm flowage onto abutting properties; analysis of roof runoff that the abutters’ consultants say will result in groundwater mounding raising the table by “multiple feet” during storms; hydrologic updates and proof that so-called permeable surfaces will perform; a freshwater impact assessment on the salt marsh and a redesign based on low-impact standards. Croll also said eight large trees were cut down on the site and should be restored.
Acknowledging “major disagreements” between the abutters’ and applicants’ engineers and the difficult task for the commission, Croll asked if the commission would have its own advisor to “figure out who in these cases is correct.”
Andrew Kendall, a direct abutter to the south of the Lees’ property, added his concern regarding stormwater flowage and echoed Croll’s request that the abutters be given a month to organize a proper response to the latest proposal.
Conservation Commission Chairman Jeff Doubrava asked Davignon if the Lees would consider another continuance, to which Davignon answered they would not and wished within their right to request the public hearing be closed.
The next meeting of the Marion Conservation Commission is scheduled for Wednesday, July 27, at 7:00 pm.
Marion Conservation Commission
By Mick Colageo