Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutNarrative 6.18.2026PROJECT NARRATIVE AFTER – THE – FACT PATIO REVIEW AND MITIGATION PLANTINGS. 689 WILLOW STREET, SOUTH YARMOUTH The area subject to this Notice of Intent is residential land adjacent to a narrow coastal stream channel and related Bordering Vegetated Wetland area. The stream channel is tidally affected and is confirmed as a coastal river for purposes of this review. The site is a level, residentially developed site with sandy soil conditions, yard areas, lawn areas, trees, shrubs and is the location of a long-established residential property that was divided into three lots and subsequently re-developed circa 1999. The specific site has wetland resources areas as listed: Land Subject to Coastal Storm Flow, Bordering Vegetated Wetland, Riverfront Area. The entire site is within the AE coastal flood zone with BFE 11; “The Run” and tidal creek fits characteristics as a “River” from which the 100 and 200 ft. RA limits are depicted; and the channel has adjacent to it a Bordering Vegetated Wetland from which 50 ft. and 100 ft. buffer zones are depicted. The site is stable, neat with no sign of adverse ground conditions. The project for review is an unpermitted, existing walkway and patio surface installed approximately 5 years ago in an existing informally landscape portion of the yard. The circular patio surface is of common paver brick, level, and accessed by a 3 ft. width walkway surface with the same paver brick. The total area of walkway and patio surface is approx. 7 40 s.f. It is effectively dry laid pavers with silica sand in the joints with patches of mortar applied on a segment of the perimeter. From interviews with the owner / applicant we understand the work activity was done with work access from the existing drive and the activity was limited to the immediate patio and walkway area. The plan shows the surface location at a distance no closer than 25 ft. to the edge of the BVW. From discussions with the owner / applicant the dryness of the area, wooded nature of the outer extent of the BVW masked what might otherwise have been acknowledgment of wetland regulatory jurisdiction. In the course of seeking Conservation authorization for a fence the patio surface came into focus. The yard condition, existing, long term ongoing yard maintenance mitigate somewhat the incursion into the buffer. The patio occupies and formerly shaded, grassy ground surface and did not require cutting and removal of brush or thicket areas of the buffer. The work occurred in the outer riparian zone and may be determined to fit the definition of redevelopment of a previously altered, not degraded riverfront area. The performance goal is to have a result within the RA that can be determined to be an ecological improvement over existing condition. Recognizing the yard area’s prior use as an actively used, cleared landscape area, and to avoid further mechanical work to remove the surface the plan proposed is to add native vegetation within the buffer between the patio and the BVW. No work is proposed on the patio with the only alteration proposed being the work activity to install the mitigation plantings. The plan notes outline the general location, specifications and recommended plants. The at grade profile, level surface and durable material poses no potential to redirect flood waters or to be affected by flood flow. Stormwater runoff from such a surface is minor, has shown no detriments in 5 years in the sandy soil and the mitigation plantings will further absorb incidental run-off. Alternatives to the circumstances are commensurate with the scope of the project, are few and can be summarized as follows. Patio removal – Significant work to re-excavate the immediate area and to re-establish some form of ground cover in the affected area is possible. The likelihood is that such a choice does not result in enhancement of the near buffer. The activity will cause for added temporary disturbances. A return to the former conditions appears likely with exception of mandated improvement. Removal and ground restoration of the 194 s.f. of surface within the 50 to 35 ft. buffer zone. The concept of a numerical distance as a setback is a useful and common planning tool and removal of an offending surface is also a possible choice. Given the 5 to 6 years the surface has existed, the former character of the activity zone, the large scope of the wetland, the proposed mitigation, questions arise as to the value achieved by the removal of a patio segment at this time. Given the mitigation proposal and previous ground conditions the mitigation may be more beneficial and the patio has not demonstrated harm to the wetland interests. This does not green light development of the 0 to 35 ft. buffer but instead recognizes that a mistake was made in years past and beneficial results can be gained. Accept the after – the – fact circumstances with the mitigation package as proposed. The prior yard area, prior gardened ground condition, acknowledgement that the patio was installed in error within an area being utilized in combination with the mitigation proposal and empirical observation that no negative impacts resulted provides a basis to approve the after – the – fact application as proposed. The circumstances appear to require a Variance from the current regulations. An alternative discussion above summarizes options. The selection of a suitable alternate shall be based upon consideration of the specific circumstances and benefits of it in combination with the Commission’ judgment and is not intended to set a precedent. Variance criteria are listed from the Yarmouth Regulations and addressed as follows: (1) description of the reasonable alternatives explored to the proposed Project which might be undertaken in compliance with the performance standards in these Regulations or with less adverse impact and an explanation of why each is not feasible . Any alternative can be rendered feasible physically and the ecological benefits change with respect to the mitigation values. (2) potential environmental impacts and environmental benefits of the Project - The presence of the level, inert patio surface for the past 5 to 6 years demonstrates that no adverse impact resulted. Yet benefits can be realized through the after – the – fact permitting and by mitigation efforts. The mitigation largely recovers the 35 ft. buffer between the project zone and for a significant distance outward to each side where the buffer could use the improvement. The mitigation ratio within the 35 ft. buffer is approx. 5.6 to 1 for the 194 s.f. of patio that landed in the 35 ft. buffer. The 35 ft. buffer was previously altered by long term ongoing yard management activities so the patio project has potential to correct much of that history. (3) description of mitigating measures provided to contribute to the protection of resource areas and values – The site plan clearly depicts only mitigation activity because no work is proposed on the patio or walkway. (4) description and all efforts that will be undertaken to minimize impact – Often, in cases where an application precedes construction activity, work limit controls are set in place. Given the established patio feature that demonstrated empirically no adverse impact, either construction or consequential, the efforts that can be taken to minimize impact can be established via the Order of Conditions relating to maintaining the mitigation area, limiting future lighting, requiring of a Compliance Certification process.