A significant portion of the meeting was dedicated to addressing the unauthorized reconstruction of a stockade fence in a sensitive coastal area. The fence, which had stood for approximately 40 years, was rebuilt without the necessary permits, prompting enforcement action from the Commission. The enforcement officer explained that the fence’s new construction failed to comply with regulations designed to allow floodwaters to pass through, which is critical in such flood-prone zones. The Commission proposed an enforcement order requiring modifications to the fence, including a six-inch clearance at the bottom and the potential removal of some slats to facilitate water flow.

The discussion revealed differing perspectives on the necessity of permits for such work. Community member Dave Meadows, representing the CRW Beach Association, argued that the fence served important functions, such as marking property boundaries and ensuring the safety of beachgoers. Meadows emphasized that the association had traditionally maintained the fence without requiring permits and sought a resolution that balanced community needs with regulatory requirements.

The Commission maintained that adherence to current regulations is paramount, particularly in areas susceptible to environmental impacts. Suggestions were made to alter the fence design to permit proper drainage while retaining its practical purposes. This highlighted a broader issue faced by many long-standing structures in Yarmouth, which may not meet modern conservation standards. The dialogue underscored a need for collaboration between the Commission and community members to find solutions that respect both environmental and community concerns.

In a separate but related enforcement discussion, the Commission revisited a long-standing issue involving an unpermitted patio on a property along Windy Road. The enforcement order dated back to 2008, when the Commission had explicitly instructed the removal of the patio and the establishment of native vegetation. The current property owners, having inherited the issue from a previous owner, were unaware of the requirement and expressed confusion over the enforcement order.

The Commission clarified that compliance with the original determination was still required, emphasizing that violations remain with the property irrespective of ownership changes. The enforcement order mandated that the patio be removed and native plants established by the end of May. While the owners were given some flexibility regarding the timeline, the Commission stressed the importance of fulfilling the conditions set forth in the original order.

The conversation touched on the environmental impact of hardscaping versus planting, with one member recalling past efforts to preserve natural vegetation by removing invasive species. The Commission noted that while porous pavements like pavers initially allow water penetration, they can clog over time, undermining drainage capability. Therefore, the preference is for softscape solutions, which mitigate environmental impacts more effectively.

The discussion also delved into the parking lot adjacent to the property, which had undergone recent renovations. Some attendees questioned the apparent inconsistency in regulations, questioning why the parking lot was permissible while the patio was not. The Commission reiterated that the patio had never been intended to remain in place and that its removal was consistent with the Commission’s long-term conservation goals.

As the meeting progressed, the Commission maintained its firm stance on not allowing any hardscaping between the deck and the wall, requesting a plansting plan to replace the patio. Deadlines for the submission and implementation of the planting plan were established, with an acknowledgment that while minor concessions could be made for access, no additional hardscaping would be permitted in the area.