Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutHaley Tyree Public Comment Letter to the board for 07_22_25 meeting (1)Haley Tyree NAB Trust 93 & 95 Salten Point Road Barnstable, MA 02630 PO Box 125, Deerfield MA, 01342 haleyrtyree@gmail.com July 15, 2025 To: Barnstable Conservation Commission Tom Lee Chair 230 Main Street Hyannis, MA 02601 Re: 87 and 0 Salten Point Road – Shoreline Protection Project Dear Members of the Conservation Commission, My name is Haley Tyree, and I am writing on behalf of my family and the NAB trust, owners and residents of 93 and 95 Salten Point Road, which abuts the property at 87 and 0 Salten Point Road—the subject of the proposed shoreline protection project submitted by the Smith and Taggert families. This property has been in our family since my great-grandfather purchased the land in the 1940s. For generations—through my great-grandfather, grandfather, father, myself, and now my children—our family has cherished this land and the natural beauty of Barnstable Harbor. Our property includes approximately 50 feet of shoreline that abuts directly to the east of 87 & 0. It also contains a recorded right-of-way (ROW) that allows the Smith/Taggert access to their property. We have attended several Conservation Commission hearings, including the most recent on June 24, 2025, where, unfortunately, we were unable to fully voice our questions and concerns. Chairman Tom Lee asked that we submit our inquiries in writing for the Commission’s consideration. Please see our concerns below. 1. Notification of Abutters During the June 24th hearing, Ms. Tangney asked whether abutters to the east had been notified. The response was no. We can confirm that, as direct abutters, we were not contacted prior to the submission. Had we been, we would have shared that we too, are working with CLM on a different project, and we were incredibly surprised and frankly disappointed that there had been zero collaboration. Had we been approached, we would have most definitely looked into the possibility of expanding this project to benefit the entire stretch of shoreline. This desire for potential collaboration or at least consultation is especially true since we agree with Ms. Tangney’s assessment that this project could redirect wave energy onto our shoreline, increasing erosion on our property and possibly beyond it to the east. It really feels like a missed opportunity. 2. Perpendicular Erosion and Risk of Failure- Mr. Sampou also raised the concern that the offshore bags may act as “sitting ducks” in high-energy conditions and could cause perpendicular erosion. Based on available site plans, it appears this erosion could directly affect our eastern shoreline. In the revised NOI it states “During routine monitoring assessments at the subject property, CLM offers to collect several spot elevations and photos of the neighboring properties in order to document potential changes over time.” (Pg. 1). We appreciate this addition to the monitoring plan, but ask, What legal or environmental recourse would we have if this project does negatively effect our property? And if the impact is not clear in the initial years, will continued monitoring be mandated for the 10 years that CLM states is ‘essential’ to the success of the project? We also echo Commissioner Hearn’s comments over the degradation of marsh grass from nutrient pollution (also stated in pg. 12 of the NOI). Over the last five years, the lawn at 87 Salten Point has been expanded and fertilized, and a small retaining wall has been installed. Were these practices taken into account as contributing to shoreline degradation? What changes will be made to avoid further damage? If the practice of fertilizing continues, how will this impact the proposal? And, we share Commissioner Tangney’s concern regarding the filling of wetlands. What is the proposed depth of fill for this area? It was mentioned that as much as 6 inches of fill could be added—can this be confirmed? 3. Responsibility for Shoreline Damage and visual impact Several Commission members—including Peter Sampou, Angela Tangney, and William Hearn—expressed skepticism about the long-term success of this project. We share their concerns. We also share the concern voiced over the visual impact of these structures. If the proposed concrete structures ("oyster castles") fail or shift during storms or tidal surges, who will be held responsible for the debris and or damage to neighboring properties, including ours? In the NOI CLM references the *eco friendly” oyster castles produced by Allied Concrete in Virginia but then states that the “breakwaters will be made of concrete or another acceptable hard substrate” and will most likely come from Allied Concrete (pg 19 or 10). Could CLM clarify what exact material they would be using? Do these structures break apart, and if they do, what is the plan for cleanup? If these structures fail or wash up on our property, what is the removal protocol, and what is the timeline for cleanup? While the project site is on private land, there seems to be a potential for debris pollution seeping into the area that is routinely used by fishermen and shellfishers, impacting the area below the mean highwater line. 4. Access and Use by Neighboring Properties While the newly proposed NOI outlines that no materials will be stored on adjacent properties and establishes that construction equipment will be kept contained in the right of way, we still have concerns about this. There has been a well-established pattern of encroaching on others' property lines and conducting aggressive and intimidating tactics to bully neighboring properties. To be very clear, the ROW is one 10-foot strip of land leading to the property of 87 Salten Point. Use of the ROW by construction crews should not block our access to our cottage, nor our access to the water. We ask: How will the right-of-way be protected during construction? If the ROW is damaged by heavy vehicles or equipment, what is the plan for restoration or compensation? What is our recourse if the proposed plan isn’t followed? 5. Owners water access: I appreciate that CLM clarified they would be creating a footpath for residents of 87, 89, and 91. We understand that there is not a public boat launch here, yet the residents of these three homes routinely launch their own watercraft in this area and we would like to ensure that they continue to do so from this footpath and not, instead, via our water access. 6. Conclusion We support responsible and well-planned shoreline protection. However, we strongly oppose any plan that protects one property at the expense of another, especially without fully understanding the downstream effects on neighboring shorelines. We respectfully request: Clear accountability for potential damage. Continued respect for property lines Long-term monitoring and remediation responsibilities extend beyond the proposed 3–4 year period. Thank you for your time and service to our community. Please include this letter in the public record for the proposed project at 87 and 0 Salten Point Road. Sincerely, Haley Tyree On behalf of the Tyree Family and the NAB Trust 93 & 95 Salten Point Road Barnstable, MA 02630 haleyrtyree@gmail.com 413-522-0880