Under the Bylaw, activities in the following areas are subject
to conditions by the Commission. The complexity of these activities
warrants the specific requirements set forth below.
For the most part, docks provide private, not public, access
to resources which are, themselves, public, and upon which dock construction
and use impacts are adverse. Docks and piers are also subject to Orleans
Zoning Bylaws.
These adverse impacts cover a broad range. Turbulence and prop
dredging generated by boat traffic to and from docks significantly
increase turbidity levels that block sunlight necessary for the photosynthetic
processes upon which the productivity of our waters depend. Suspended
sediments cover shellfish habitat, smothering existing shellfish and
altering the quality of the sand bottom essential for spat (mollusk
larvae) settlement. Dock structures alter the circulation patterns
that affect shellfish settlement. Prop dredging in near shore areas
destroys shellfish habitat. Boat traffic generated from docks adds
to this disruption and causes erosion of banks and marshes.
Marshes, which provide the food chain for many species of sport
and commercial fish and shellfish as well as other wildlife, are also
affected. The shaded conditions docks produce can cause a decrease
in plant height, population density and leaf thickness as well as
alteration of species composition. Reductions in plant density result
in loss of sediment normally trapped by roots and culms. Tidal washouts
and localized depressions result which concentrate salt through evaporation
of trapped water preventing recolonization by the original vegetation.
The marsh's ability to absorb wave energy as well as the marsh's
contribution toward maintaining ground and surface water quality is
also adversely impacted. Displacement of marsh areas by dock pilings
and the area immediately surrounding them results in marsh loss. This
loss can be substantial when the cumulative impact of increasing numbers
of docks is considered.
Cumulative impacts of dock proliferation threaten to decrease
the overall productivity of the marsh ecosystem, to reduce its ability
to absorb storm wave energy, and to reduce its contribution to groundwater
and surface water quality.
Presumptions. Docks are one of the few activities which come before the Commission for regulation which occur entirely within resource areas, i.e., beaches, flats, salt and freshwater wetlands, land under both salt and fresh water bodies, land subject to tidal action, to flooding and to coastal storm flowage. Collectively, these resource areas are presumed significant to all the interests protected under the Act and the Orleans Wetlands Protection Bylaw, Chapter 160. Furthermore, almost without exception, docks occur in ACEC's or in the Town Cove/Nauset estuary system where the performance standard requires that there be no adverse impact upon the interests protected by the Act and Orleans Bylaw.
The Pleasant Bay Resource Management Plan, which has been approved
by the Commonwealth of Massachusetts and adopted by the Town of Orleans,
provides a framework for state and local permitting of docks and piers
in Pleasant Bay. The plan concludes that a significant portion of
the shoreline of the ACEC is resource sensitive and not appropriate
for siting new docks and piers. In the remaining areas of shoreline
within the ACEC, the plan calls for revised standards and criteria
to be used in evaluating proposals for docks and piers.
The resource assessment incorporated into the Pleasant Bay Resource
Management Plan concludes that the areas listed below are extremely
resource-sensitive and therefore are not appropriate for siting new
private docks and piers. The resource management plan recommends that
the construction of new private docks and piers or the extension of
existing private piers be prohibited in these areas. This recommendation
does not apply to existing licensed piers or the maintenance of existing
licensed piers.
Quanset Pond, from the westerly boundary of the property with
Map and Parcel Number 93-9 to the easterly boundary of the property
with the Map and Parcel Number 93-12.
On the Northside of Big Pleasant Bay and through the Narrows,
from the westerly boundary of the property with Map and Parcel Number
93-17 to the northerly boundary of the property with Map and Parcel
Number 89-11, and the Western shore of Sipsons Island from the northerly
boundary of the property with Map and Parcel Number 94-7 and all contiguous
properties running counterclockwise to the southerly boundary of the
property with Map and Parcel Number 94-10.
From the entrance channel of Paw Wah Pond beginning at the southerly
boundary of the property with Map and Parcel Number 76-16, and continuing
through the River Complex to the southerly boundary of the property
with the Map and Parcel Number 64-7, including Paw Wah, Arey's
and Meeting House Ponds, the Namequoit River and The River.
Pochet Inlet, from the southerly boundary of the property with
Map and Parcel Number 65-02 and continuing northward to the southerly
boundary of the property with Map and Parcel Number 52-11, and including
the Eastern Shore of Pochet Inlet.
The Pleasant Bay Resource Management Alliance has adopted standards
for applications for new docks and piers. The considerations resulting
in these standards have equal application to the Inner Cape Cod Bay
ACEC and to Town Cove/Nauset Estuary which, under these regulations,
is treated as if it were an ACEC.
The dock location is not within a shellfish area identified
by the Orleans Shellfish Constable or within shellfish habitat as
defined in the Bylaw. No project which would require removal and/or
replanting of shellfish in an ACEC will be permitted (310 CMR 10.34).
The depth of water at the dock's seaward end is at least
2.5 feet at all times and is of sufficient depth to be navigable with
or without a motor at mean low tide without prop dredging or other
disturbance of the bottom except that caused by poling or walking.
The structure does not impede legitimate passage for fishing,
fowling and navigation and sufficient open water is maintained to
sustain a variety of activities including but not limited to fishing,
swimming and sailing.
The project is the least intrusive structure which will meet
the applicant's goals but will also be the most protective of
the wetland resources and values. The applicant must show that all
alternatives to the proposed structure have been thoroughly investigated
and that the proposed structure will provide at least as great protection
to the wetland values cited herein as a less intrusive alternative
or the greatest protection to the wetland values cited in the Act
and the Bylaw. These alternatives include but are not limited to the
use of an offshore mooring with dinghy access, dock sharing, use of
a Town dock, reduction in the size of the structure, use of a haul
rope and the no-build alternative.
Where possible the proposed structure should serve several lots
if by so doing it reduces the total number of structures along the
coast and does not increase the density of use which would otherwise
obtain. Town docks are exempted.
Docks must be set back at least fifty (50) feet from the property
line, except that docks shared by contiguous properties must be at
least fifty (50) feet from the outermost boundary of the contiguous
properties.
Use of nonleaching treated materials is encouraged to prevent
the profusion of broken-off, rotted pilings. Installation shall be
by boat or floating barge and shall be in accordance with a design
and installation plan prepared by a licensed engineer.
For any dock permitted herein, the applicant must also receive
appropriate licenses from the Commonwealth of Massachusetts and the
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Proof of such licenses shall be forwarded
to the Commission before a certificate of compliance will be issued.
The dock shall be removed before December 1 and not be reinstalled
before April 1. Storage of dock components shall be in a location
shown on an approved plan.
Determination of potential shellfish habitat. In areas where it is
unknown if the area is likely to be a habitat for shellfish, the applicant
may be required to submit evidence of shellfish populations based
on a shellfish survey conducted by a qualified shellfish biologist.
Survey shall include existing populations of all sizes of commercially
important species of shellfish (clams, quahogs, scallops, mussels)
and shall also include other species of mollusks that may determine
predator/prey relationships and food preferences (i.e., filter feeders
or deposit feeders). The presence of these species may indicate the
capacity of an area to support commercially important species. The
survey shall also include a description of shell fragments to the
best extent possible and the survey must also include references to
historical information regarding presence or absence of shellfish
species.
Replacement of decking, stringers and railings, ramps or floats
will be permitted, in accordance with approved plans on file, as a
routine matter. Replacement of pilings, pipes, or other components
in the ground will require the filing of a request for determination
of applicability. Any construction not in accordance with plans on
file will require a notice of intent.
Maintenance of unlicensed docks and piers will require the filing
of a notice of intent. Applicants should be aware that the Commonwealth
of Massachusetts has the authority to remove any dock that was not
properly licensed by October, 1995.
Alteration of licensed docks. For any dock licensed by the DEP and
approved by the Town of Orleans, any enlargement in height, total
footprint including but not limited to addition of size or number
of floats, or any movement of the structure relative to its shoreline
position, will require the filing of a notice of intent. Changes to
the dock must be acceptable to the DEP under the existing license
or a new license must be requested and approved before making changes
to an existing dock. If a new license is requested, the dock must
meet all current regulations for docks.
All existing permanent and seasonal docks and piers in the Town
of Orleans must also be licensed by the Massachusetts DEP Division
of Waterways, Chapter 91 licensing procedure and by the U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers and must also have a valid order of conditions
from the Orleans Conservation Commission and the DEP. Owners of unlicensed
docks and piers must have filed a notice of intent by September 30,
1996.
Amnesty licensing. Under the amnesty licensing procedure for
all unlicensed docks, either in or outside of an ACEC, a notice of
intent shall be required accompanied by an engineered plan and providing
the information required in the EOEA Pier Guidelines Checklist and
in the list of submission requirements prepared by the Orleans Conservation
Commission. The engineered drawing is to be on the dock as it presently
exists. The only changes in an existing dock design that the Commission
will consider are those which reduce the scope and impact of the project.
Interim licensing. Interim licensing must meet the same requirements
listed above under amnesty licensing unless the applicant can show
that the dock is of such minimal proportions and impact that a lesser
application will suffice to provide the Commission with adequate baseline
information on the dock's structure, its location and its environmental
impacts.
Section 196A-8B of these regulations sets specific performance standards for ACECs and adds the Nauset/Town Cove estuary as requiring no adverse impact on the resources.
Approval of existing unlicensed or licensed docks or new docks.
Approval and issuance of an order of conditions for an unlicensed
dock, even if existing, is not guaranteed and the Commission will
consider the structure under current regulations. Approval of a licensed
dock will take into consideration the Chapter 91 license, but where
the Commission finds egregious environmental impacts such as loss
of shellfish habitat or prop scour or the structure is clearly over-designed,
the Commission may deny the project and require its removal or alteration.
An applicant will have the burden of demonstrating by a preponderance
of credible evidence that there will be no adverse effect either immediate
or cumulative.
A walkway is an elevated or at-grade structure used as a walkway
to traverse fresh or salt meadow, marsh, bank, dune, or beach. It
differs from a dock in that it begins and terminates above mean high
water, even though it may cross over a point that is below mean high
water.
Performance considerations. A walkway may be permitted in cases where
it can be demonstrated to improve the condition of a resource area
and when such demonstrated improved condition exceeds the benefit
that could be reasonably expected from a restoration effort; or where
it can be demonstrated that irreparable erosion and destabilization
of a resource area would result from informal access. The owner of
the property on which the structure is proposed should submit for
review a notice of intent and any other required applications, including
clear delineation of property boundaries. In demonstrating the potential
improved condition of or preventive benefit to the resource area,
the following potential impacts must be considered:
The extent of existing erosion or degradation of vegetation
or substrate resulting from foot traffic must be evaluated. Reasonable
efforts to regenerate damaged resource areas should be fully explored.
The presence or absence of habitat must be determined. There
should be no loss or degradation of habitat for shellfish, finfish,
birds, reptiles or other animals, or of fish runs resulting from the
proposed structure.
The cumulative effect of the proposed structure must be considered. Cumulative effects are the combined effects of Subsection B(1) through (7) of all existing structures within the same resource system.
Impacts on the resource from the use of the proposed structure
must be determined. The frequency, volume and intensity of use must
justify the need for the structure. Shared use structures are to be
encouraged as a means to provide access to the shore while minimizing
the number of structures that might otherwise be permitted.
Setbacks from property lines and structures provide a way to
reduce density, and the associated intensity of impacts on resource
areas, and to encourage shared use structures.
A walkway should be located where it will have the least impact
on or can improve the condition of a resource area. A setback of one
hundred, but no less than fifty, feet from the property boundaries
is preferred unless the structure will be owned and used by two or
more contiguous property owners. In such cases the setback requirement
may apply to the outermost boundaries of the two or more contiguous
properties so that the structure may be placed on a shared property
line.
The height of the structure at all points above the marsh shall
be equal to or exceed the width of the deck. For the purpose of this
condition, height shall be measured from the marsh substrate to the
bottom of the longitudinal support beam. The height shall not go above
three feet or below one foot as measured from the substrate or, in
the case of a creek, mean high water. The laying of planks directly
on the ground or substrate is prohibited.
The height of a structure is necessary to allow sufficient light
penetration to underlying vegetation, and to prevent storm damage.
The height maximum is to protect the natural appearance of the resource
area. Similarly, the width limitation is intended to limit adverse
impacts on vegetation.
Plank spacing. No less than three-quarter-inch spacing is required
between planks to allow light penetration for vegetation. Alternate
decking material may be used if it provides a similar or greater degree
of light penetration.
Pile size and spacing. Piles shall not exceed 4 inches by 4
inches and should be spaced a minimum of eight feet apart to minimize
the impact of installation to the underlying substrate. The use of
helical or other alternate technology pilings, or seasonal stub piles,
that can be demonstrated to minimize impacts on the substrate, should
be encouraged.
Orientation. A north to south orientation of the structure results
in maximum sunlight penetration to underlying vegetation, and is preferred
wherever feasible.
Seasonal installation is encouraged. Permanent 4 by 4 stub piles
with removable planks or sections are preferred to prevent storm damage
to the structure and potential impacts from storm debris on the adjacent
marsh area. The term "seasonal" is intended to mean six months or,
generally, May 1 through October 31. Permanent structures may be permitted
in cases where the structure will be used consistently year-round,
or in cases where more than one property owner is sharing use of the
structure.
Materials. Use of nonleaching materials such as plastic lumber
and other such building materials that do not leach pollutants into
the aquatic ecosystem are preferred over CCA-treated lumber. Use of
treated materials is allowed because they minimize the incidence of
rotting in structures. Creosote-treated lumber is prohibited.
Installation. Installation should be accomplished with minimal
disturbance to surrounding soils or vegetation, using methods in the
applicable order of conditions, as determined on a case-by-case basis.
A design and installation plan approved by a licensed engineer or
surveyor is preferred.
Storage. All removable portions of seasonal structures must
be removed using practices that minimize impacts on the resource,
and be stored outside the resource area unless otherwise specified
in the applicable order of conditions.
A dock in a freshwater resource area is an elevated structure
used to access the water beyond the shoreline. Note that a walkway
which is located above mean annual high water in a freshwater resource
area should not be allowed to have affixed to it a float or raft that
would extend the use of the structure below mean annual high water
where it could function like a dock without meeting the requirements
contained within this regulation.
Freshwater resource areas encompass, but are not limited to,
all ponds, great ponds, rivers, intermittent streams, and bordering
vegetated wetlands (BVW). Some of these resource areas may be brackish
through connections to saltwater bodies. Shoreline structures that
are proposed below mean high water within great ponds must obtain
a Chapter 91 License from the Massachusetts Department of Environmental
Protection (DEP).
Performance considerations. All naturally formed ponds and lakes
on Cape Cod are groundwater fed and therefore the presumption is that
a pond or lake is a coastal plain pond with characteristics including
concentric bands of coastal plain pond vegetation, gentle sloping
shoreline, and fluctuating water level. Therefore, a new or expanded
dock in a freshwater resource area may only be permitted in cases
where an improvement to the condition of the resource area can be
demonstrated and when such demonstrated improved condition exceeds
the benefit that could be reasonably expected from a restoration effort.
This presumption can be overcome using verifiable evidence from a
credible source. A dock may be approved where it can be demonstrated
that irreparable erosion and destabilization of a resource area would
result from informal access.
Where in the judgment of the Commission the small size of the
water body or the proximity of reasonable access alternatives makes
a structure unnecessary.
Where in the judgment of the Commission a structure is unnecessary
to protect and maintain wetland resources, and particularly the exemplary
habitat communities and BVW noted above.
In the event that none of the foregoing criteria apply, a proponent
must be able to demonstrate to the satisfaction of the Commission
that the proposed structure is able to meet the following performance
criteria:
There should be no adverse effect on, loss or degradation of
habitat for shellfish, finfish, birds, reptiles or other animals,
or of fish runs resulting from the proposed structure.
There should be no adverse effect on the visual character of
the shoreline area resulting from the proposed structure. To the extent
practicable, applicants should apply the methodology for assessing
visual impacts described in the Cape Cod Commission's Visual
Impact Assessment Technical Bulletin.
The cumulative effect of the proposed structure should not result in an adverse effect on wetland resources. Cumulative effects are the combined effects [Subsection B(2)(a) through (f)] of all existing structures within the same water body.
Supporting documentation. In order to assess the applicability of
any of the criteria noted above, the proponent must provide all required
applications and supporting documentation, including clear delineation
of property boundaries, to the Commission. Documentation should be
provided to address the site conditions described below.
Existing conditions. The slope and vegetative survey of terrain
from observed mean annual low water to the upland edge of bordering
vegetated wetland (BVW) (as defined in 310 CMR 10.55) should be evaluated.
The extent of existing erosion or degradation of vegetation or substrate
(underlying soils) resulting from foot traffic must be evaluated.
Reasonable efforts to regenerate damaged resource areas should be
fully explored and documented.
Characterization of the water body. The size (acreage) of the
water body should be documented. Observed mean annual high water and
observed mean annual low water should be documented based on measurements,
taken between April 15th and May 15th and between August 15th and
September 15th, respectively, and provided to the permit granting
body along with groundwater and precipitation data for the year of
measurement and the preceding nine years, so that the Commission may
determine how characteristic these measurements are of annual levels.
Topography and depth of water should be shown in one-foot contours
from the upland edge of the BVW to five feet beyond the terminal point
of the proposed structure.
Wildlife habitat. The presence or absence of wildlife habitat
must be determined. A comprehensive inventory of fish and wildlife,
including fisheries, shellfisheries, reptiles, amphibians and other
wildlife located within fifty feet laterally from any edge of the
proposed structure, conducted by a qualified professional, should
be provided.
Vegetation in wetlands. A comprehensive inventory of emergent
and submergent vegetation and BVW fifty feet laterally from any edge
of the proposed structure, conducted by a qualified professional,
should be conducted during the growing season and provided.
Rare and endangered species. Given the delicate and migratory
nature of some rare species, the presence or absence of rare or endangered
species must be determined through a site survey by a qualified professional.
Copies of notice to the Massachusetts NHESP and all responses to the
notice from NHESP are required.
Monitoring. Photographs of the surrounding area should be taken
before and after initial installation, and on an on-going basis to
be determined by the Conservation Commission and specified in the
order of conditions.
Use. Impacts on the resource from the use of the proposed structure should be determined. The type, frequency, volume and intensity of use must justify the need for the structure. Secondary impacts Subsection B(2)(a) through (f) should be evaluated to determine impacts from use. Shared-use proposals (i.e., a single structure jointly owned and used by two or more waterfront property owners) are generally to be encouraged as a way of providing access to the water body while reducing the overall number of structures that might otherwise be permitted.
Design standards for docks in freshwater resource areas. The general
performance standard for docks in freshwater resource areas shall
be the same as in an ACEC no adverse effect. In general, a proposed
structure should be designed and constructed so as to cause no adverse
effect on the local resource area ecology, including but not limited
to, wildlife, fisheries, and BVW. In all cases, structures should
be designed to minimize the overall size wherever possible. No structure
should be allowed that is designed to accommodate vessels that are
not feasible or allowed in the body of water where the structure is
proposed.
Length. The length of the structure should be the minimum needed to reach minimum required water depth [see Subsection D(4) below] and clear emergent vegetation. In cases where additional walkway access is warranted to traverse BVW, such additional walkway area should be designed pursuant to Guidelines for Private Walkways and Stairways in Fresh and Marine Resource Areas In Pleasant Bay.
Height. The height of the structure should be no less than two
and one-half feet, above the existing grade of the BVW or land under
water as measured from the bottom surface of decking.
Water depth. Water depth at the terminal end of the structure
should be at least one (1) foot. For water bodies that allow motorized
vessels there should be a terminal water depth of 2.5 feet.
Orientation. Structures should be designed to be located as
close to perpendicular to the shoreline as possible. If this requirement
cannot be met, the structure should have a grated or transparent surface
to allow light penetration. Structures should be designed to have
a north-to-south orientation whenever possible. Structures with an
east-to west orientation should have a grated surface to allow maximum
light penetration.
Setbacks. Structures should be located a minimum of 50 feet
from any property line, as measured from the nearest edge of the structure,
and should be a minimum of 250 feet from any pre-existing shoreline
structure or Town- or association-owned landing. Setback requirements
may vary for structures shared by two or more property owners, provided
that setback requirements for nonparticipating property owners are
maintained.
Seasonality. All structures should be seasonal in nature and
should be installed no earlier than May 1st and removed no later than
November 1st. All seasonal components should be securely stored at
an upland site that is approved by the Conservation Commission.
Pile size and spacing. Pilings, if used, should be four inches
by four inches and should be spaced eight feet apart unless the dock
is shorter than eight feet. Some innovative design technologies, if
used, may not require pilings. However, if pilings are used they should
be driven to refusal; no pilings may be jetted.
Materials. Lightweight materials, such as aluminum, are preferred
for their easy removal. Grated surfaces are preferred, to allow maximum
light penetration. If planks are used, spacing should be a minimum
of 3/4 inches.
Innovative structures. Innovative structures and materials that
can be demonstrated to have less impact on natural resources and public
safety than traditional docks may be considered.
Coastal banks are likely to be significant not only to the interests protected under state law, i.e., storm damage prevention and flood control as cited in 310 CMR 10.30, but to other wetland values protected under the Orleans Bylaw (§ 160-1) i.e., erosion and sedimentation control, fisheries, shellfish habitat, wildlife habitat, recreation and aesthetics. There are adverse impacts on these protected interests when the coastal shoreline is cut off, by revetments or other erosion control measures, from the natural systems of which it is a part.
Among these adverse impacts can be loss or lowering of beaches,
or deprivation of bank sediment which would normally be moving in
the littoral drift. Limited or altered access along the shoreline
impacts hunting, fishing and passive and active recreational opportunities.
Wildlife habitat is also destroyed or affected when natural bank vegetation
is altered. The aesthetic value of a natural shoreline may also be
substantially reduced.
Loss of sand from previously eroding banks may result in the
gradual drowning of marshes and changes in shellfish habitat and fisheries,
as well as loss of nutrients to these resources. Also marshes which
would normally follow an eroding and retreating coastal bank can be
blocked by erosion control measures, and their continued growth and
health limited.
When a proposed project involves dredging, removing, filling
or altering a coastal bank, the Conservation Commission shall presume
that the area is significant to the interests protected under the
Orleans Bylaw. This presumption may be overcome by clear and convincing
evidence that a coastal bank does not play a role in the protection
of these interests and if the Orleans Conservation Commission makes
a written determination to that effect.
The Commission further presumes a coastal bank is significant
to storm damage prevention and flood control both because it is a
vertical buffer to stormwaters and because it supplies sediment to
coastal beaches, coastal dunes or barrier beaches. This presumption
can be overcome only by a clear showing that a coastal bank does not
play a role in the protection of one or more of these interests. This
showing may include but may not be limited to studies of bank composition,
erosion rate, destination or eroding materials and historical data.
Coastal banks significant to storm damage prevention and flood control
as vertical buffers and as sources of sediment to coastal beaches,
dunes and barrier beaches. Where a coastal bank is significant to
storm damage prevention and flood control, both because it is a vertical
buffer to stormwaters and because it supplies sediment to coastal
beaches, dunes, or barrier beaches, no new bulkhead, revetment, seawall,
groin, or other coastal engineering structure shall be permitted on
such coastal bank except that the Orleans Conservation Commission
has the discretion to permit such structure if, in its judgment, such
structure is required, and there is no reasonable alternative method
of protection, to prevent storm damage to buildings constructed prior
to August 10, 1978 [see 310 CMR 10.30(3)] and buildings reconstructed
subsequent to that date but prior to the adoption of these regulations,
unless the orders of conditions under which such reconstruction was
performed contain a prohibition against construction of such a structure,
including but not limited to bulkhead, revetment or seawall.
Coastal banks significant to storm damage prevention or flood control
as vertical buffers to stormwaters. Where a coastal bank is determined
to be significant to storm damage prevention or flood control solely
because it is a vertical buffer to stormwaters, and such bank is not
found to be significant to storm damage prevention or flood control
because it supplies sediment to coastal beaches, dunes, or barrier
beaches, the Orleans Conservation Commission may, but is not required
to do so, permit construction of bulkheads, revetments, seawalls,
gabions, groins, or other coastal engineering structure that is designed
to alter wave, tidal, or sediment transport processes in order to
protect inland or upland structures from the effects of such processes
provided that such structures qualify for protection under § 196-12H
or I.
Conditions governing new construction within 100 feet of the top
of a coastal bank. The order of conditions and the certificate of
compliance for any new building within 100 feet landward of the top
of a coastal bank permitted by the issuing authority under MGL c.
131, § 40, or the Orleans Wetlands Protection Bylaw and
these regulations, shall contain the following specific condition:
"No coastal engineering structure shall be permitted on an eroding
bank at any time in the future to protect the project allowed by this
order of conditions."
The term building includes dwellings and structures essential
to commercial operations. The term does not include tennis courts,
boathouses, outbuildings, etc. protection of which will be considered
on a case-by-case basis.
Means, but is not limited to, any breakwater, bulkhead, groin,
jetty, revetment, seawall, weir, riprap, gabions, or any other structure
that is designed to alter wave, tidal, or sediment transport processes
in order to protect inland or upland structures from the effects of
such processes, which shall also include gabions or other structures
that effect these processes.
A new structure, or one of which over 25% of the structure
measured by square footage of the foundation, or cubic footage of
the structure, has been altered or rebuilt. This definition is applicable
only to construction commenced on the date of the adoption of these
regulations and thereafter.
SOFT STRUCTUREAn erosion control solution comprised entirely of biodegradable materials designed to stabilize a bank and slow the rate of erosion without significantly altering wave, tidal or sediment transport processes and with minimal increase to the existing slope of the bank. Soft structures may include the use of fiber rolls, sand, and/or sandbags, and should be stabilized with plantings of indigenous vegetation as soon as practicable to minimize further erosion.
The Conservation Commission puts emphasis on allowing a coastal
bank's natural processes to continue for as long as possible
before coastal erosion controls are applied for.
Coastal engineered structures (CES) may be permitted only after
the applicant has shown there are no feasible alternatives. The applicant
may be required to show that alternatives, such as soft structures,
have been tried and failed.
Coastal engineered structures (CES) must be as low and short
as consistent with toe protection. Structures designed for complete
protection against catastrophic storms, and lot line to lot line protection
will be closely scrutinized.
A "return" must be designed to avoid end scour on neighboring
land and to prevent flanking of the structure. The Commission shall
require that the return be setback from the applicant's lot line
to prevent accelerated erosion on the abutter's property.
Multiple projects: Where submitted jointly, these guidelines
will be applied as closely as feasible, but with special consideration
of a systems approach.
Chink stone may be permitted only where the applicant can prove
by clear and convincing evidence that the stone will remain in place.
The applicant will be responsible for the removal of such stone that
is scattered on the beach in violation of this requirement.
Soft structures that incorporate fiber rolls shall be required
to have ID tags sewn on all coir rolls when they are installed to
ensure proper ID and disposal if the rolls are dislodged from the
project site.
Banks characterized by non-storm lunar cycle wave action and a normally
steady rate of erosion. In determining whether the bank complies with
the above description, the Commission shall look at the state of bank
vegetative cover and the locations of mean high water and spring high
tide. Where these locations intersect with the toe of the bank, the
Commission shall presume that the banks are normally subject to regular
wave action and the following standard shall apply:
No CES will be permitted if the building to be protected is
more than 20 years away from the top of the bank based on the long-term
average annual erosion rate. For example, if the annual erosion rate
is two feet per year or more and the structure is 40 feet or less
from the top of the bank, the Commission may consider permitting a
CES where there are no feasible alternatives and other conditions
had been met.
Where the applicant is unable to document the erosion rate,
no CES shall be permitted where the building to be protected is more
than 40 feet from the top of the bank or until monitoring the erosion
shows an erosion rate that would expose the building foundation in
20 years or less.
If the distance from the building foundation to the top of the
bank is less than 40 feet, a CES may be allowed. However, the greater
the distance the building is from the top of the bank, the lower the
height of the CES should be. Notwithstanding the above, the height
of the CES may be such that following storm-induced bank erosion,
or a slump above it, at least 30 feet should remain between the building
foundation and the top of the bank.
Where a coastal bank is subject both to episodic storms and steady
erosion from lunar cycle tides, protection may be approved for the
more severe threat.
Informal access over coastal and inland banks may cause erosion
and destabilization. Where access improvement is permitted to avoid
erosion problems, those improvements shall be minimal and as unobtrusive
as is consonant with safe and environmentally sound access. Accessory
structures such as recreational or storage decks will not be permitted,
and the following guidelines must be observed.
A stairway or stairs is considered any single or set of steps,
and any platform or landing connected thereto, connecting different
levels to traverse a dune, bluff or coastal bank or other slope.
The choice of whether stairs are to be designed to be dug into
the ground or elevated is site specific and depends on factors such
as the grade of slope, composition of the substrate, nature of vegetation.
The benefits of "dug-in" stairs include their ability to allow vegetative
cover, minimal visual impact, tendency to slow the erosion effects
of rainfall, and their durability. Elevated stairs may at times be
preferred to protect vegetation, or due to the steep slope of a bank.
The stair structure should be located where it will have the
least impact on or can improve a resource area. Unless vegetation
and contour of slope dictate otherwise, a minimum setback of twenty-five
feet from the property boundaries is preferred unless the stairway
will be owned and used by two or more contiguous property owners.
In such cases the setback requirement shall apply to the outermost
boundaries of the two or more contiguous properties so that the stairway
may be placed on a shared property line.
The structure shall remain unpainted in order to preserve as
far as possible the natural appearance of the bank. If nonwood materials
are used they should be of a color that will blend in with the natural
surroundings.
A staircase that is dug into the ground shall follow the slope
profile. Treads or risers must be level to prevent erosion. The stairway
may be straight or serpentine.
Use of nonleaching material such as plastic lumber or other
such building materials that do not leach pollutants into the aquatic
ecosystem are preferred over CCA-treated lumber. Use of treated material
is allowed because it minimizes the incidence of rotting in structures.
Creosote-treated lumber is prohibited.
Where the Commission finds, due to the height or steepness of
the bank, or other factors, that a resting landing is justified, that
landing shall meet the above width requirement and shall seat no more
than two individuals.
A staircase shall follow the slope profile as closely as possible;
provided, however, that with the exception of the supporting posts,
no portion of the proposed stairway shall be closer than one foot
from the ground. Plans submitted must show the contours and how compliance
will be accomplished.
The stairway shall have no risers and there shall be a minimum
of one-half inch spacing between deck planks in order to permit light
penetration and encourage vegetation.
Where the Commission finds, due to the height or steepness of
the bank, or other factors, that a resting landing is justified, that
landing shall meet the above width requirement and shall seat no more
than two individuals.