DUXBURY - June 1, 2026 - Following a tense and emotionally charged public hearing, the Duxbury Selectboard voted 4-0 to approve an order of betterments to assess 25% of the Phase 2 seawall construction costs onto surrounding property owners. The decision satisfies a mandatory town meeting directive to recover $2.94 million from the neighborhood, despite deep frustration from coastal residents who claimed the assessment methodology is inequitable, lacks adequate transparency, and penalizes homeowners for protecting vital public infrastructure.
The Full Story
The Selectboard meeting, chaired in person by Vice-Chair Fernando Guitart while Chair Amy MacNab participated remotely due to illness, centered almost entirely on the implementation of special assessments for the newly constructed Duxbury Beach seawall. Finance Director Mary MacKinnon opened the presentation by outlining the fiscal framework of the project. The total construction expenditures for Phase 2 reached $14.776 million. After factoring in a $3 million Coastal Zone Management (CZM) grant secured by the town, the net project cost sat at $11.7 million.
Per the explicit terms voted under Article 13 of the March 2023 Annual Town Meeting and a subsequent Proposition 2 1/2 debt exclusion, the town is responsible for 75% ($8.8 million) of the cost, while the remaining 25% ($2.94 million) must be levied directly onto the benefited properties through betterments.
To distribute the $2.94 million, town officials duplicated the tiered mathematical formula established during Phase 1 of the seawall project in 2018:
Tier 1 (Directly Abutting): Responsible for 70% of the total betterment pool ($2.06 million), distributed across 47 properties based strictly on linear beach frontage.
Tier 2 (Second Row): Responsible for 17% of the cost pool, split equally among 28 parcels, resulting in a flat assessment of $17,875.60 per property.
Tier 3 (Third Row): Responsible for 8% of the pool split among fewer homes, yielding a flat $19,650 assessment.
Tier 4 (Fourth Row): Responsible for the remaining 5%.
The meeting grew contentious as MacKinnon introduced three specific modifications made to the assessment ledger since the previous Friday. Two small, vacant, and undevelopable parcels valued at $600 and $8,000 were entirely exempted from the Tier 2 roll because the flat $17,875 assessment would unconstitutionally exceed the properties’ actual values. Additionally, a coastal parcel owned by the Najarian family was removed from Tier 1 after recorded DPW easement plans proved the new wall did not actually extend in front of their land.
These late adjustments triggered an hour of sharp criticism from the audience. Resident Geralyn McShane of Gurnet Road fiercely objected to her property being classified as Tier 1 frontage. McShane argued that because her beachfront parcel is vacant land separated from her home by a road, it receives no structural protection from the wall. “I have no house. The water comes over... the marsh is our issue, not the ocean. So we should not be penalized,” McShane protested. Selectboard member Brian Glennon counter-argued that shifting properties between tiers on the fly would create a cascading financial burden on the remaining 27 people in those zones and urged uniform adherence to the established map.
