Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutNOI revisedJanuary 18, 2024 1146 Route 28 South Yarmouth, MA 02664-4492 RE: . Yarmouth, MA , South Yarmouth, MA. - non- the sent you a the . . you have an 508-477-7272 -. S Page 1 of 1 * ELECTRONIC COPY Riverfront Area (1.5x the Fee) 1.5 750.00 $750.00$387.50 $362.50 Page 1 of 7 * ELECTRONIC COPY $750.00 $387.50 $362.50 AND RIVERFRONT AREA. Page 2 of 7 * ELECTRONIC COPY x Follins Pond 2,510 2,510 temporary 0 9,323 x temporary NOTICE OF INTENT APPLICATION (REV 1/18/24) 6 BUTTERCUP LANE, SOUTH YARMOUTH Page 1 1.0 OVERVIEW 1.1 Introduction Cape & Islands Engineering, Inc. has submitted this Notice of Intent (NOI) Application, on behalf of the applicant, Adrienne Hollander for the proposed coastal restoration at 6 Buttercup Lane (Map 119, Parcel 34.1, Lot 2) in South Yarmouth, MA. The proposed work involves the shoreline stabilization of an existing Coastal Bank in order to eliminate the ongoing erosion at the subject parcel and the restoration of Coastal Bank by removing invasive, non-native English Ivy. No new development is proposed as a part of the project. Work will take place on the Coastal Beach, Coastal Bank, Land Subject to Coastal Storm Flowage and Yarmouth Coastal Watershed Areas and Riverfront Area. The project will result in a net environmental benefit after the work is complete. The proposed activities are further described below. 1.2 Applicable Regulations This application has been filed pursuant to the Commonwealth of Massachusetts Wetlands Protection Act (MA WPA) M.G.L. Chapter 131, Section 40, and its implementing regulations (310 CMR 10.00); and the Town of Yarmouth Wetland By-law, Chapter 143, Section 2 and its associated regulations (YWPR). 2.0 BACKGROUND 2.1 Existing Conditions The project is located at 6 Buttercup Lane, South Yarmouth, MA, a private residential property on Follins Pond. The 9,323 square foot lot is currently occupied by an existing single-family, two story, three bedroom, three bath, colonial home built in 1997 and remodeled in 2000. The property has a single car garage, gravel driveway, brick walk, brick patio, landscaping and lawn, and a stairway, pier and float accessing Follins Pond. Electric, gas, water and a private septic system service the home. On site, the existing toe of the Coastal Bank is eroding resulting in the destabilization of the rest of the Coastal Bank and the sedimentation of the adjacent Salt Marsh. 2.2 Property History The property has been a lot on record since on or about July 24, 1947, and has been developed as a legal single-family residence as of 1997, per the Town Assessors records. 2.3 Site Characteristics The site is developed with a residential single family home and a pier and float system. The lot is 9,323 square feet with a maintained lawn and plantings. A portion of the property is located in FEMA Flood Zone AE (EL. 9) as shown on the FEMA Flood Insurance Rate Map, Community Panel No. 25001C0583J, effective July 16, 2014. Flood Zone elevations shown and referenced are based on the 1988 North American Vertical Datum (NAVD 1988). The site topography is relative flat until, to the east/northeast of the property where it slopes down to Follins Pond at a 2:1 slope. The slope to Follins Pond is wooded with oaks (Quercus sp.), pitch pine (Pinus rigida), eastern red cedar (Juniperus virginiana), black cherry (Prunus serotina), black locust NOTICE OF INTENT APPLICATION (REV 1/18/24) 6 BUTTERCUP LANE, SOUTH YARMOUTH Page 2 seedlings (Robinia pseudoacacia), and English Ivy (Hedera helix). The toe of the slope is eroded and undercut with some areas of erosion along the slope face. A newly formed beach and a salt marsh is located at the bottom of the slope. 3.0 PROPOSED PROJECT 3.1 Scope of Work The proposed work consists stabilizing the existing eroding bank with the installation of a reinforced high marsh and the selective management of invasive plant species on the bank. The reinforced high marsh is a below-grade matrix of cobble, compatible sediment, coir fibers, and compost encased in biodegradable material. The installation is a reinforced planting medium for transitional marsh species such as salt marsh hay, spike grass, seaside goldenrod, switchgrass, and American beach grass. See Restoration Plan by Wilkinson Ecological Design and Work Protocols for Reinforced High Marsh Installation document by Wilkinson Ecological Design. Two access routes are proposed. One access route will be across the existing lawn to reach the top of the Coastal Bank. Machines will be utilized to winch materials down to the work area along the toe of the bank, but will not traverse the bank. The second access route will be via barge or landing craft to allow small low ground pressure equipment to reach the bottom of the bank within the project area. 3.2 Resource Areas Wetland resource areas found on or within 100 feet of the site include Coastal Beach, Coastal Bank, Land Subject to Coastal Storm Flowage, Coastal Watershed Areas, Salt Marsh and Land Containing Shellfish and Riverfront Area. The southeastern corner of the developed lot is located within the 200- foot Riverfront Area, however, no work is proposed within this portion of the lot. The proposed work consists of Coastal Bank stabilization to protect the property. No new development is proposed. See Section 5.0 for the applicable performance standard analysis of each resource area. 3.3 Construction Methodology The Order of Conditions and signage will be posted at the site and the area staged for construction. Efforts will be coordinated to minimize construction time and disturbance within and around the subject resource areas. Construction methodology is outlined in detail in the Work Protocols document by Wilkinson Ecological Design found in the Appendices. 3.4 Anticipated Impacts The proposed project is a bank stabilization project and will greatly enhance the shoreline’s ability to withstand erosion while also enhancing the location with beachgrass. In addition, invasive, non-native English Ivy will be removed from Coastal Bank in order to reestablish native species. Minor temporary impacts to Riverfront Area, Coastal Bank and Coastal Beach will occur when completing the work. The project as designed can be implemented with typical methodologies and measures. No adverse impacts associated with this project are anticipated. All disturbances will be kept to the minimum necessary to complete the stabilizationactivities. NOTICE OF INTENT APPLICATION (SUPPLEMENTAL RFA ANALYSIS) 6 BUTTERCUP LANE, SOUTH YARMOUTH Page 1 5.0 APPLICABLE PERFORMANCE STANDARDS (CONTINUED) 5.9 Riverfront Area According to the MA WPA Regulations at 310 CMR 10.58. Riverfront Area is located on site and is defined as 200 feet from the Mean High Water (MHW) mark of Follins Pond. The entire property is located within RFA. The MWM mark and the 100-foot RFA Boundary are shown on the project plans. No loss of vegetated RFA will occur as a part of this project. The project will enhance and restore RFA on site by preventing the future erosion and undermining of the existing Coastal Bank and by removing invasive species and by encouraging the growth of native species. The following is a discussion of the MA WPA RFA regulations presumption of significance and performance standards and how the project meets the standards. MA WPA RFA Presumption of Significance 310 CMR 10.58 (3) Presumption. Where a proposed activity involves work within the riverfront area, the issuing authority shall presume that the area is significant to protect the private or public water supply; to protect the groundwater; to provide flood control; to prevent storm damage; to prevent pollution; to protect land containing shellfish; to protect wildlife habitat; and to protect fisheries. The presumption is rebuttable and may be overcome by a clear showing that the riverfront area does not play a role in the protection of one or more of these interests. In the event that the presumption is deemed to have been overcome as to the protection of all the interests, the issuing authority shall make a written determination to this effect, setting forth its grounds on Form 6. Where the applicant provides information that the riverfront area at the site of the activity does not play a role in the protection of an interest, the issuing authority may determine that the presumption for that interest has been rebutted and the presumption of significance is partially overcome. The proposed project will not permanently alter the RFA on site. There will be no loss of RFA values after work is complete. The RFA will continue to be vegetated and will continue to be pervious. The proposed shoreline protection will prevent the additional loss of soils and potential undermining of the coastal bank and associated vegetation. The project will not impact the ability of the Riverfront Area to protect private or public water supply, to protect groundwater, to provide floodcontrol, to prevent storm damage, to prevent pollution, to protect land containing shellfish to protect wildlife habitat or protect fishieries. MA WPA RFA General Performance Standards 310 CMR 10.58 (4) General Performance Standard. Where the presumption set forth in 310 CMR 10.58(3) is not overcome, the applicant shall prove by a preponderance of the evidence that there are no practicable and substantially equivalent economic alternatives to the proposed project with less adverse effects on the interests identified in M.G.L. c.131 § 40 and that the work, including proposed mitigation, will have no significant adverse impact on the riverfront area to protect the interests identified in M.G.L. c. 131 § 40. In the event that the presumption is partially overcome, the issuing authority shall make a written determination setting forth its grounds in the Order of Conditions and the partial rebuttal shall be taken into account in the application of 310 CMR 10.58 (4)(d)1.a. and c.; the issuing authority shall impose conditions in the Order that contribute to the protection of interests for which the riverfront area is significant. (a) Protection of Other Resource Areas. The work shall meet the performance standards for all other resource areas within the riverfront area, as identified in 310 CMR 10.30 (Coastal Bank), 10.32 (Salt Marsh), 10.55 (Bordering Vegetated Wetland), and 10.57 (Land Subject to Flooding). When work in the riverfront area is also within the buffer zone to another resource area, the performance standards for the riverfront area shall contribute to the protection of the interests of M.G.L. c. 131, § 40 in lieu of any NOTICE OF INTENT APPLICATION (SUPPLEMENTAL RFA ANALYSIS) 6 BUTTERCUP LANE, SOUTH YARMOUTH Page 2 additional requirements that might otherwise be imposed on work in the buffer zone within the riverfront area. All other relevant resource area performance standards have been met. (b) Protection of Rare Species. No project may be permitted within the riverfront area which will have any adverse effect on specified habitat sites of rare wetland or upland, vertebrate or invertebrate species, as identified by the procedures established under 310 CMR 10.59 or 10.37, or which will have any adverse effect on vernal pool habitat certified prior to the filing of the Notice of Intent. The proposed work is not located within mapped Estimated or Priority Habitat or Vernal Pools. (c) Practicable and Substantially Equivalent Economic Alternatives. There must be no practicable and substantially equivalent economic alternative to the proposed project with less adverse effects on the interests identified in M.G.L. c. 131 § 40. The proposed alternative is the most reasonable, least impactful alternative that solves the erosion issues on site. Other alternatives include the no build alternative or the armoring of the toe of the coastal bank with rock or rip rap. 1. Definition of Practicable. As set forth in 310 CMR 10.04, an alternative is practicable and substantially equivalent economically if it is available and capable of being done after taking into consideration costs, existing technology, proposed use, and logistics, in light of overall project purposes. Available and capable of being done means the alternative is obtainable and feasible. Project purposes shall be defined generally (e.g., single family home, residential subdivision, expansion of a commercial development). The alternatives analysis may reduce the scale of the activity or the number of lots available for development, consistent with the project purpose and proposed use. The alternatives analysis shall not include interior design specifications (i.e., neither the proposed use or project purpose in the Notice of Intent nor the Order of Conditions should specify the number of rooms, bedrooms, etc. within a building). Transactions shall not be arranged to circumvent the intent of alternatives analysis review. The four factors to be considered are: a. Costs, and whether such costs are reasonable or prohibitive to the owner. The owner means the individual or entity which owns the area where the activity will occur or which will implement the project purpose. Cost includes expenditures for a project within the riverfront area, such as land acquisition, site preparation, design, construction, landscaping, and transaction expenses. Cost does not include anticipated profits after the project purpose is achieved or expenditures to achieve the project purpose prior to receiving an Order with the exception of land acquisition costs incurred prior to August 7, 1996. In taking costs into account, the issuing authority shall be guided by these principles: i. The cost of an alternative must be reasonable for the project purpose, and cannot be prohibitive. ii. Higher or lower costs taken alone will not determine whether an alternative is practicable. An alternative for proposed work in the riverfront area must be a practicable and substantially equivalent economic alternative (i.e., will achieve the proposed use and project purpose from an economic perspective). iii. In considering the costs to the owner, the evaluation should focus on the financial capability reasonably expected from the type of owner (e.g., individual homeowner, residential developer, small business owner, large commercial or industrial developer) rather than the personal or corporate financial status of that particular owner. Applicants should not submit, nor should issuing authorities request, financial information of a confidential nature, such as income tax records or bank statements. iv. Issuing authorities may require documentation of costs, but may also base their determinations on descriptions of alternatives, knowledge of alternative sites, information provided by qualified professionals, comparisons to costs normally associated with similar projects, or other evidence. Any documentation of costs should be limited to that required for a determination of whether the costs are reasonable or prohibitive. NOTICE OF INTENT APPLICATION (SUPPLEMENTAL RFA ANALYSIS) 6 BUTTERCUP LANE, SOUTH YARMOUTH Page 3 The proposed coir log alternative is the least impactful and most environmentally friendly alternative with similar if not higher costs to protect the Coastal Bank than simply installing rock or rip rap at the toe of slope. b. Existing technology, which includes best available measures (i.e., the most up-todate technology or the best designs, measures, or engineering practices that have been developed and are commercially available); The installation of coir logs and planting of native species is the best available measure for this site. c. The Proposed Use. This term is related to the concept of project purpose. In the context of typical single family homes, the project purpose (construction of a single family house) and proposed use (family home) are virtually identical. In the context of projects where the purpose implies a business component, such as residential subdivision, commercial, and industrial projects, the proposed use typically requires economic viability. Practicable and substantially equivalent economic alternatives include alternatives which are economically viable for the proposed use from the perspective of site location, project configuration within a site, and the scope of the project. In the context of publically financed projects, the proposed use includes consideration of legitimate governmental purposes (e.g., protection of health and safety, providing economic development opportunities, or similar public purposes); and There is no change in use. The property will continue to be a developed Single Family Residential Home. d. Logistics. Logistics refers to the presence or absence of physical or legal constraints. Physical characteristics of a site may influence its development. Legal barriers include circumstances where a project cannot meet other applicable requirements to obtain the necessary permits at an alternative site. An alternative site is not practicable if special legislation or changes to municipal zoning would be required to achieve the proposed use or project purpose. An alternative is not practicable if the applicant is unable to obtain the consent of the owner of an alternative site for access for the purpose of obtaining the information required by the Notice of Intent or of allowing the issuing authority to conduct a site visit. NOT APPLICABLE. The site is already developed. The project involves an improvement and stabilization of resource areas on site. 2. Scope of Alternatives.The scope of alternatives under consideration shall be commensurate with the type and size of the project. The issuing authority shall presume that alternatives beyond the scope described below are not practicable and therefore need not be considered. The issuing authority or another party may overcome the presumption by demonstrating the practicability of a wider range of alternatives, based on cost, and whether the cost is reasonable or prohibitive to the owner; existing technology; proposed use; and logistics in light of the overall project purpose. a. The area under consideration for practicable alternatives is limited to the lot for activities associated with the construction or expansion of a single family house on a lot recorded on or before August 1, 1996. b. NOT APPLICABLE c. NOT APPLICABLE 310 CMR 10.58 (4) 3. Evaluation of Alternatives. The applicant shall demonstrate that there are no practicable and substantially equivalent economic alternatives as defined in 310 CMR 10.58(4)(c)1., within the scope of alternatives as set forth in 310 CMR 10.58(4)(c)2., with less adverse effects on the interests identified in M.G.L. c. 131 § 40. The applicant shall submit information to describe sites and the work both for the proposed location and alternative site locations and configurations sufficient for a determination by the issuing authority under 310 CMR 10.58(4)(d). The level of detail of information shall be commensurate NOTICE OF INTENT APPLICATION (SUPPLEMENTAL RFA ANALYSIS) 6 BUTTERCUP LANE, SOUTH YARMOUTH Page 4 with the scope of the project and the practicability of alternatives. Where an applicant identifies an alternative which can be summarily demonstrated to be not practicable, an evaluation is not required. The purpose of evaluating project alternatives is to locate activities so that impacts to the riverfront area are avoided to the extent practicable. Projects within the scope of alternatives must be evaluated to determine whether any are practicable. As much of a project as feasible shall be sited outside the riverfront area. If siting of a project entirely outside the riverfront area is not practicable, the alternatives shall be evaluated to locate the project as far as possible from the river. The issuing authority shall not require alternatives which result in greater or substantially equivalent adverse impacts. If an alternative would result in no identifiable difference in impact, the issuing authority shall eliminate the alternative. If there would be no less adverse effects on the interests identified in M.G.L. c. 131, § 40, the proposed project rather than a practicable alternative shall be allowed, but the criteria in 310 CMR 10.58(4)(d) for determining no significant adverse impact must still be met. If there is a practicable and substantially equivalent economic alternative with less adverse effects, the proposed work shall be denied and the applicant may either withdraw the Notice of Intent or receive an Order of Conditions for the alternative, provided the applicant submitted sufficient information on the alternative in the Notice of Intent. The proposed alternative is the most reasonable, least impactful alternative that solves the erosion issues on site. Other alternatives include the no build alternative or the armoring of the toe of the coastal bank with rock or rip rap. 310 CMR 10.58 (4)(d) No Significant Adverse Impact. The work, including proposed mitigation measures, must have no significant adverse impact on the riverfront area to protect the interests identified in M.G.L. c. 131, § 40…… 1. Within 200 foot riverfront areas, the issuing authority may allow the alteration of up to 5000 square feet or 10% of the riverfront area within the lot, whichever is greater, on a lot recorded on or before October 6, 1997 or lots recorded after October 6, 1997 subject to the restrictions of 310 CMR 10.58(4)(c)2.b.vi., or up to 10% of the riverfront area within a lot recorded after October 6, 1997, provided that…. The project will not alter RFA on site. RFA will remain as a pervious, vegetated area after the work is complete. 2. Within 25 foot riverfront areas, any proposed work shall cause no significant adverse impact by… Not Applicable. The project will improve RFA by removing invasive species and planting native species. In addition, the toe of the Coastal Bank will be stabilized to avoid any future erosion and destabilization of the RFA. Wildlife habitat functions will be improved after the Coastal Bank is stabilized, invasive plant species are removed and native plant species are installed. 3. Notwithstanding the provisions of 310 CMR10.58(4)(d)1. or 2., the issuing authority shall allow the construction of a single family house, a septic system if no sewer is available, and a driveway, on a lot recorded before August 7, 1996 where the size or shape of the lot within the riverfront area prevents the construction from meeting the requirements of 310 CMR 10.58(4)(d)1. or 2., provided that: a. The lot can be developed for such purposes under the applicable provisions of other municipal and state law; and b. The performance standards of 310 CMR 10.58(4)(d) are met to the maximum extent feasible. In difficult siting situations, the maximum extent of yards around houses should be limited to the area necessary for construction. Except where the lot contains vernal pool habitat or specified habitat sites of rare species, a wildlife habitat evaluation study shall not be required. NOTICE OF INTENT APPLICATION (SUPPLEMENTAL RFA ANALYSIS) 6 BUTTERCUP LANE, SOUTH YARMOUTH Page 5 The lot is already developed as a Single Family Lot. All applicable performance standards associated with this project have been met to the maximum extent feasible. 4. Notwithstanding the provisions of 310 CMR 10.58(4)(d)1. or 2., the issuing authority may allow the construction of a commercial structure.. NOT APPLICABLE In summary, the proposed work will have no Significant Adverse Impact on RFA. The project does not involve additional development or installation of hard surfaces on the site. The project will prevent the continued erosion and undermining of the existing coastal bank and the management of invasive species on the bank. After work is complete, the RFA will remain vegetated. The removal of invasive species and the encouragement of native species on site will create a RFA and Coastal Bank with more wildlife habitat value with native wildlife foot sources and shelter than under current conditions. The existing Coastal Bank is currently eroding along the toe of the Coastal Bank, destabilizing the rest of the Bank and associated RFA. The proposed bank stabilization will protect the residential land and home from future erosion which could become a danger to the health and safety of the home owner. The proposal for the project includes a coastal adaptation strategy that consists of an 80 linear foot reinforced high marsh along the eroding toe of the Coastal Bank. The reinforced high marsh will lessen the severity of erosion at the toe of bank, which will preserve the existing plant community on the face of the bank within the RFA and will provide additional native plant species where none currently exists. The reinforced high marsh installation will further protect the coastal bank and will enhance the continued storm damage prevention that the current bank provides. The project meets all applicable regulatory performance standards for Riverfront Area. The proposed project activities will not have an adverse effect on the subject resource area, its characteristics or interests.