Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Coastal Management topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Property owners seek to cut annual beach‑nourishment rates; commission approves one reduction and tightens conditions for others
Summary
Engineers for multiple shorefront owners asked to reduce annual sand‑nourishment volumes based on long‑term erosion projections and observed accretion. The commission approved a reduced nourishment plan for Sherwood Road with conditions and asked other applicants for supporting calculations before agreeing.
Several shoreline property owners asked the commission to reduce long‑standing annual beach‑nourishment requirements after recent surveys and cross‑section analyses suggested accretion in front of revetments.
At 12–18 Sherwood Road, Chuck Roland (Capen Islands Engineering) presented a recalculation that used Coastal Zone Management long‑term erosion projections (0.6 ft/yr) rather than an earlier 1.5 ft/yr assumption. He said that recalibrating the cross‑sections and compensatory storage would bring the required nourishment down substantially. "The long‑term erosion rate for all three sections consisted of 0.6 feet per year," Roland said, and the firm proposed placing a smaller annual volume plus a modest compensatory storage above the revetment.
Commission response and conditions Commissioners praised the detail of the submission but repeatedly asked that the final Order of Conditions include a discrete, auditable cubic‑yard value rather than leaving the amount embedded only in plans or equations. Alex, conservation staff, confirmed the draft conditions would be revised to insert the exact nourishment amount and include standard engineering clarifications (require professional stamps, specify staging permit and signage). The commission approved the Sherwood Road reduction with special conditions.
Other shoreline requests and peer review Surveyor Dan Ojula and other engineers presented similar reduction requests for properties at 31 Bayberry Lane (Scott Family Trust) and adjacent lots. Commissioners acknowledged visible accretion on recent site visits but declined to approve a reduced rate without supporting arithmetic. "We can't act on the owner's gut feel; we use the CCM formula and we use data for this," a commissioner said. Applicants agreed to provide tops, cross‑section calculations and the missing D numbers for further review; several hearings were continued to allow submission of the supporting analysis.
Revetment approval and marsh monitoring Separately, Tyen Bond engineers revised a stone revetment design at 75 Cove Road to raise crest elevation to the 100‑year flood level and simplify stair access after peer review. The commission approved the revetment and attached conditions requiring pre‑ and post‑construction photographs and three years of salt‑marsh vegetation monitoring to document any indirect marsh effects.
Why it matters: beach nourishment and revetment conditions determine long‑term shoreline form, potential habitat impacts and property risk. The commission signaled willingness to reduce annual nourishment where high‑quality data support that result, but said reductions must be documented and incorporated into enforceable conditions rather than left to informal practice.
Next steps: applicants seeking nourishment reductions were asked to return with explicit calculations and the commission will plug final cubic‑yard quantities into the draft Orders of Conditions before approval.
