Restrictive Covenants
This Rhode Island property maintains a natural buffer of vegetation along the shoreline to help protect the home from erosion. Note where the buffer ends and the mowed grass begins.
Case Study:
Overview:
Restrictive covenants are deed restrictions that limit what uses or activities are allowed on a property. Restricted covenants are another tool to minimize potential erosion threats to development and thus, indirectly, avoid the need for hardening the shore. For example, covenants could address the type of shoreline protection allowed, if any, establish setbacks or buffers along the water, or prohibit cutting and clearing of vegetation within those buffer zones. The restrictive covenants can be drafted as part of a subdivision plat, deed or title, or placed on the property separately.
Benefits: Ensures landowners are aware of preventative practices that will help minimize shoreline erosion. Placing restrictive covenants on entire waterfront developments to prevent shoreline armoring can help avoid erosion problems created when neighboring property owners install hard stabilization structures.
Drawbacks: May not have all scientific data needed to make a good decision as to how restrictive the covenant should be. Most shorelines are already subdivided and/or developed so there is limited opportunity to add restrictive covenants. Developers often oppose restrictive covenants because they feel they would deter potential buyers. However, covenants could have positive impacts where environmentally sensitive development and aesthetically appealing, unaltered shorelines are valued. Development boundaries do not necessarily align with a drift cell, therefore, covenants may not be placed on an environmentally significant scale. Placing restrictions that prohibit shoreline armoring in one development but not on another within the same drift cell could increase erosion rates downdrift from the hardened shoreline, negating the benefits a restrictive covenant could have at reducing erosion rates.
Case Study:
Irrigation Restrictions Placed on California Bluff Property
A property owner requested a coastal permit from the California Coastal Commission to place an addition on their single-family, bluff-top home in Solana Beach, California. The addition was minor and would be limited to the landward side of the property. Although the addition, itself, would not increase the erosional threat to the property, the existing structure did not comply with the city's and Commission's current setback requirements. The existing home was only setback 20 feet from the bluff face whereas, the current standard was 40 feet. Also, recent geological studies and bluff failures nearby showed that a bluff failure on that property was very possible in the near future.
While the Commission permitted the addition, they were still very concerned about the impending erosion threat to the existing structure. Activities such as installing and operating a permanent lawn irrigation system and directing runoff toward the bluff face could trigger bluff slumping. To address these concerns, before the Commission issued a coastal permit, they required deed restrictions be placed on the property prohibiting the use of bluff-top irrigation systems and requiring that all storm water runoff be collected and directed away from the bluff. The Commission also conditioned the permit to make it clear that the applicant assumed all risks for their existing structure and new addition since they decided to add on despite the geologic evidence that bluff collapse was very likely.