Conservation Commission Grapples with Rocky Seawall Issues

The Conservation Commission, which normally draws a small crowd to listen to its discussions of wetlands and coastal banks, played to a packed house in the basement of the town's Mary Alley Building Thursday night as it deliberated on two potentially controversial seawall reconstructions.

Before the commission are a proposal by Groom Construction to raise a seawall at a house it is rebuilding at 15 Spray Avenue and a second proposal by Peter Noyes to rebuild seawalls on Gerry Island.

The Groom proposal would raise the seawall five or six feet to deflect storm waves from the Atlantic Ocean that can shower not only the house, but all the way to the street in front of it.

Neighbors on Bass Rock Lane oppose the higher sea wall, claiming it will just move the large waves to the south and onto their properties.

The neighbors have hired Bourne Consulting Engineering to analyze the impact the higher wall will have on the where the waves will go.

“It is likely to cause increased wave impact on abutter (neighboring) properties to the south. The proposed riprap is steep and will provide little wave energy absorption compared to the existing gently sloping sideyard,” Bourne wrote in its opinion.

The waves coming from the northeast would be redirected to the property to the south. “Increased wave energy directed to the south has the potential to cause damage or erosion on the abutting property,” Bourne wrote.

Groom's engineer, Hayes Engineering, disagrees that the wall will have a negative impact on the neighbors' properties.

The state Department of Environmental Protection has said it would not approve the higher seawall as it is currently designed.

To resolve the differing opinions, the commission decided to hire its own independent engineer. Two firms submitted bids, but neither Groom's attorney, Paul Lynch, nor the neighbors' attorney, Carl King, could agree on which engineering firm should be hired.

Even the commission was divided. On a vote of four to two, the commission chose CLE Engineering of Marion, which submitted a bid of $3,950 for the work, over Childs Engineering Corp. of Medford, which bid $2,500 for the work.

Commission chairman Walter Haug argued that Childs in submitting only a one-page bid had not given the commission enough detail. Members Deborah Payson and Craig Smith said they thought Childs' bid was adequate and would favor firm with the lower bid.

Lynch argued that Childs was the better qualified firm. King, however, maintained that Childs would not render an impartial decision because it wanted to work with Groom on future engineering work. Lynch denied there was any relationship between Groom and Childs.

Gerry Island Walls

On the Gerry Island proposal, about a dozen people showed up to oppose Noyes's plans. The owner of the Rockmore Floating Restaurant is proposing to repair the deteriorating walls on the island with the apparent idea of storing boats there in the future.

The island, which is owned by Redstone Realty, can be reached at low tide by a causeway from Gas House Beach.

The neighbors expressed concern that the reconstruction of the walls would damage fragile sealife, particularly the second most prolific lobster nursery on the east coast. Marshall Wondolowski brought the lobster nursery to the commission's attention and invited the members to visit it next Tuesday morning when there will be a very low tide.

The commission agreed and set a site visit for 7 a.m. on Tuesday.

Patricia Boyd said the walls under discussion are not seawalls, but are the foundations of old houses that burned down when the fire engines could not get to the island to fight the fires.

Several neighbors asked the commission to conduct a full environmental impact study on the island, including the effect increase boat and vehicle traffic might cause on the island and the surrounding water.

Noyes said the two existing boat yards on the island already have “hundreds of times more traffic” than what he is proposing. He said all of the proposed work would be above the low tide mark and thus have no impact on the sealife.

The commission postponed decisions on both proposals until the group meets again on May 12.