Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Coastal Dune topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Scituate commission declines raise‑and‑reconstruct plan for 30 Marshfield after neighbors and commissioners cite dune, flooding risks
Summary
The Scituate Conservation Commission voted to decline a proposal to raise and reconstruct a dwelling (including an accessory unit and buried septic) at 30 Marshfield Avenue, citing insufficient analysis of dune vegetation protection, flood‑flow modeling and potential impacts on adjacent properties; the vote was 3–2 to decline.
The Scituate Conservation Commission voted to decline a raise‑and‑reconstruct application for 30 Marshfield Avenue after members and nearby homeowners said the proposal did not provide enough detail to show it would protect a vegetated coastal dune and prevent increased flood or erosion risks.
The project team, represented by Jeff Delisi, proposed elevating a primary dwelling and adding an accessory dwelling unit with associated utilities and a buried 2,000‑gallon septic. Abutters told the Commission they were concerned that grading, utility trenching and placement of the septic could destabilize dune vegetation that currently helps protect adjacent properties.
“This application does not provide sufficient analysis demonstrating these impacts will not occur,” said Richard Vaza, an abutter at 22 Marshfield Avenue, who submitted photos and a written letter calling for vegetation‑protection plans, construction sequencing and hydraulic flow modeling. Several commissioners echoed that they had not seen the flood‑flow or hydraulic analysis they would need to determine whether the work would adversely affect the resource area.
Commissioner Eric (last name not specified in the record) pressed the project team for more technical evidence, saying, “in these coastal environments during flood events… structures are exposed” and that modeling is necessary to assess worst‑case erosion or exposure of buried systems. Applicant representatives said the project has been under review and that the proposed design follows prior submissions and coastal‑engineering guidance, but they did not present the requested modeling at the meeting.
After discussion, Commissioner Penny moved to decline the project; Commissioner Eric seconded. The motion to decline carried (commissioners recorded votes in favor and opposed on the record). The applicant was told they may pursue relief through DEP as provided by law.
Next steps: the applicant may submit additional technical documentation or appeal to state review under the applicable wetlands and coastal regulations. The Commission’s action is recorded as a formal decline, with members citing insufficient evidence that the proposal would meet performance standards for the coastal dune resource.
