Fears arriving with sewering on Plum Island

PLUM ISLAND -- When Paul Georges bought his modest raised ranch with its sweeping view of the marsh six years ago, he did it with the understanding that no one could build on the vacant lot in front of him and block his ''gorgeous" sunsets.

He even checked records in Newbury Town Hall that, he says, designated the lot ''unbuildable" because it is too small for a legal septic system.

But as a $23 million project to bring public water and sewer to Plum Island's 1,200 homes nears completion, Georges is discovering the rules are changing. Vacant land once deemed off-limits for construction has become buildable -- and more coveted -- because water and sewer services will be brought to the curbside. That prospect has touched off a high-stakes battle as conservationists, residents, and state and local officials draw their lines in the sand over building on the sensitive barrier island.

''It's not a matter of saying, 'I got mine and I don't want anyone else to come in,' " said Georges, who lives in the Newbury section of Plum Island. ''Certainly a lot of the attractiveness of the island could be diminished by what everybody would recognize as potential rampant growth."

Newbury's Zoning Board of Appeals on Nov. 10 granted permission for a home to be built on the vacant lot in front of the Georges house. The special permit was the first the board approved for a Plum Island vacant lot since Newbury and Newburyport agreed to a batch of rules in 2001 to curb growth on the island, said board member Howard Traister.

Traister declined to discuss the board's decision but said that zoning actions on Plum Island, in general, have been a sort of ''balancing act." ''You try to look at each issue and follow the law," he said.

Plum Island includes parts of Newbury, Newburyport, Rowley, and Ipswich, but development is limited to Newbury and Newburyport.

Among the rules Newbury and Newburyport agreed to follow in 2001 were regulations that: limited future building on vacant lots to no more than 48 new homes island-wide; banned conversion of single-family homes to two-family; limited structures to two-stories and banned all construction in so-called ''primary dune areas" and in sections identified as likely to flood.

The municipalities received zero-interest loans from the state to build the new water-sewer system, in exchange for the agreements to control growth on the sliver of land, three-quarters of which is already set aside for the Parker River National Wildlife Refuge.

The Conservation Law Foundation, one of the region's largest and most powerful environmental groups, is watching the developments closely.

In a five-page letter sent Nov. 17 to state Department of Environmental Protection Commissioner Robert Golledge Jr., the foundation accused Newbury and Newburyport officials of reneging on their Plum Island agreements. The letter did not single out Newbury's approval of the home near Georges, but focused on the overall pace of construction and expansion on the island. It said the foundation witnessed what appeared to be ''considerable construction" taking place on the island, during a recent visit.

''Having the state provide a public subsidy for what is looking like a development stampede out there is very troubling," said Peter Shelley, the foundation's director of advocacy in Massachusetts in a phone interview. ''We don't want to see Plum Island go the direction of Salisbury Beach. Development affects the capacity of the barrier beach to accommodate storms."

In his letter to the state, Shelley said ''inappropriate development" on other barrier beaches has created ''great economic losses" for residents, and local, state, and federal governments, while taxpayers often end up subsidizing coastal disaster relief. Shelley also urged the state to ask each municipalities' conservation agent for an inventory of all building permits granted and all zoning and wetlands actions taken since both communities signed the 2001 agreements with the state to control growth.

The letter concluded by suggesting construction that did not conform to the 2001 agreements should be ''subject to removal."

Ed Coletta, spokesman for the state's environmental commissioner, declined to comment, saying that the agency is still reviewing the letter.

But to many residents in both communities, the foundation's letter is tantamount to fighting words.

''Why don't they come down and talk to us instead of just sending letters?" said Ron Barrett, president of Plum Island Taxpayers and Associates, a neighborhood organization.

Barrett, 53, has lived on the island his entire life and owns homes in the Newbury and Newburyport sections. He has witnessed what once was a summer retreat with about 100 year-round houses during his boyhood become a booming jumble of development, with million-dollar homes wedged next to winterized cottages.

Facing pressure from environmentalists to stem the growth, or face potential fines and the loss of state financing for the water/sewer project, Newbury voters earlier this year approved strict wetlands bylaws that essentially prohibited most renovations or additions on about 300 Plum Island homes deemed to be in flood zones. After an outcry by islanders, voters reversed themselves and in August eased the bylaws to allow most of those homeowners to renovate and expand.

Barrett, who helped create some of the 2001 zoning rules to curb growth, said much of the overbuilding was done decades earlier. The rules he helped write, he said, were aimed at hampering residents from tearing down cottages to build mansions in their place. Still, he said, he objects to wetlands rules, backed by environmentalists, that would have prevented many homeowners from making basic home improvements.

''You can't take the rights of the people away," Barrett said.

Newburyport officials are still mulling wetlands bylaws for their section of the island. Meanwhile, the issue of whether to build or not build continues to pit neighbor against neighbor.

''Friends and neighbors get so heated about this, relationships break up. Friends mad at each other, stop talking," said Michele Ulchak, 38, who moved to the island a decade ago from Somerville and started the Plum Island Soap Co.

Ulchak said she sympathizes with both sides -- those who pushed for the public water system, weary of the island's salty supply, and those who wanted to head off the utilities, fearing they would bring a building boom.

''My feeling was, if it comes, it comes," she said.

Officials in both communities say they have received an increased number of requests and inquiries recently from homeowners and owners of vacant lots about construction and expansion possibilities. Water and sewer hook-ups are tentatively slated to start next spring.

''The new Plum Island has all these rules and more people and more individuals, but it's still a beautiful island," Barrett said. ''You come across the bridge and you are in another world."

Kay Lazar can be reached at klazar@globe.com.