FAIRLEE — The Town of Fairlee is currently embroiled in a dispute between neighboring summer residents on Lake Morey. On Wednesday, both parties, along with their attorneys, presented their cases to Fairlee’s Development Review Board during a heated special session.
The dispute centers on renovations including a retaining wall and a deck roof behind the Lake Morey Road property. These renovations are being installed by the property’s owners, Matthew and Kim LeBoeuf.
For the retaining wall, the LeBoeufs received a shoreland permit from the Vermont Department of Environmental Conservation and submitted all plans to the Town of Fairlee, which granted them an administrative permit.
Neighbors Martin Burns and Connie Oberle Geoghan have appealed the decision of Zoning Administrator Chris Brimmer, who found that a conditional use permit was not required. Attorney Chris Roy, representing Burns and Geoghan, argued that the retaining wall does not adhere to town zoning laws and should have required conditional use permits. Brimmer said at the review board meeting that the zoning office had not previously interpreted zoning laws in this way.
On the issue of the deck roof, the LeBoeufs are applying for a conditional use permit, which Roy argues they are not eligible for given the height and placement of the structure.
Neither party lives year-round on Lake Morey Road, but both sides say they have deep financial and emotional ties to the lake.
Burns said his family and Geoghan’s have owned property on the lake for decades. “These are people who really care about Lake Morey, and who have put their money, time and effort toward preserving it,” he told the Valley News.
Burns said the deck’s new roof obstructs his property’s view of the lake. However, for him, the issue is bigger than that.
“I’m really concerned if this development goes through, it will lead to widespread development and change the character of Lake Morey,” Burns said.
LeBoeuf told the Valley News that since his family bought the property two years ago, a house he described as derelict, they have gone out of their way to ensure their improvements adhere to Vermont’s environmental regulations. He said he consulted with surveyors, three different sets of engineers and other professionals when planning the renovations. He said the retaining wall provides much-needed protection from erosion.
“We’re fortunate enough to have property on the lake and know it’s special,” he said. “We share the same commitment to protect the lake and its resources.”
While making his case to the board, Roy referenced several similar lakefront property cases he had been involved in, including one that went before the Environmental Division of the Vermont Superior Court and the Vermont Supreme Court. Roy did not respond to requests for comment by deadline Friday.
Brimmer declined to comment because the matter is pending. Geoghan also declined to comment.
The board went into deliberative session Wednesday night to discuss the matter. Under state law, the board has 45 days from the hearing to issue a decision, and that decision can be appealed to the Environmental Division of the Vermont Superior Court within 30 days.