HomeMy WebLinkAboutComment Letter to Waterways Committee from Atty Bailey 10_21_2025(18603768.1)
#18603495v1
October 21, 2025
BY ELECTRONIC MAIL
Waterways Committee
c/o Brian W. Taylor, Harbormaster
Town of Barnstable
1189 Phinney's Lane
Centerville MA 02632
Re: 108 Long Beach Road
Notice of Intent for Permanent Fixed Pier and Seasonal Floats
Dear Members of the Committee:
We represent David and Patricia Wallace, owners of 112 Long Beach Road (“Wallace
Property”), and Carol Anne Cushing and Sharon Monahan, owners of 98 Long Beach Road
(“Monahan Property”), with respect to a proposed pier and float expansion (“Project”) at 108
Long Beach Road (“Site”). The Wallace Property abuts the Site to the west, and the Monahan
Property abuts the Site to the east. Both the Wallace Property and Monahan Property have
existing docks.
The Project is shown on the revised site plan dated September 9, 2025, prepared by
Down Cape Engineering (Site Plan), and consists of the following:
• Removal of the existing ramp and float on the Site;
• Construction of a new 14’ long fixed and permanent pier, together with a 15’ ramp and
two 6’ X 11’ floats. The new pier, ramp and float system will extend 32’ into the river
from the mean high water mark.
• Installation of six 12” permanent pilings.
I write to express our clients’ strong objections to the Project as proposed. As described
in more detail below, we have three primary objections:
1. The Project is too large for the Site, which is only 25-feet wide at the shoreline,
and will result in navigational and safety threats to existing docks and piers on my
clients’ properties.
2. The Project extends 32’ feet into the river, which is far in excess of the 12.5’
allowed by the Town’s regulations.
3. The Project proposes an elevated, permanent pier. This is inconsistent with the
existing seasonal dock on the Site, the seasonal docks on the abutting properties,
DANIEL J. BAILEY III
100 Summer Street
22nd Floor
Boston, MA 02110
PH 617.488.8165
FX 617.824.2020
dbailey@pierceatwood.com
www.pierceatwood.com
Admitted in: MA
Waterways Committee
c/o Brian W. Taylor, Harbormaster
Town of Barnstable
October 21, 2025
Page 2
#18603495v1
and the Town’s regulations, which expressly prefer the lower impact of seasonal
docks and floats.
The Project Is Too Large For The Site
The proposed Project is simply too large for a 25-foot wide Site, particularly in light of
the existing ramps and floats on my clients’ properties. The Site Plan shows that the new float
will be only 16.5’ from the existing float on the east side of the Wallace Property. The Site Plan
also shows that the applicant intends to dock a large, 25’+ boat on the Site. The proposed 16.5’
distance between my client’s existing float and the applicant’s proposed float is not nearly
enough to permit safe use of the proposed float, let alone to safely dock a 25’+ boat. Moreover, a
25’+ boat will inevitably extend beyond the property line (if extended into the river) and
encroach on the neighboring Wallace property. The additional crowding and congestion that will
be caused by the Project presents an unacceptable safely hazard. The Centerville River is a
narrow waterway that is already congested with many docks, piers, and floats. My clients do not
object to some increase in the size of the float at the Site, but a float that is almost as wide as the
project shoreline is too large.
The Project Extends Too Far Into The River
The applicant has requested a variance from Section 703-4(J)(1) of the Town’s
regulations for Docks and Piers. That section provides:
No dock, including pier, floats, dolphins, etc., shall extend further from shore than:
A point equaling 1/2 of the lot's water frontage measured in a straight line between
the lot's waterfront corners. Owners of two adjoining lots may combine frontage
and erect a shared pier, provided that such agreement is registered in perpetuity at
the Registry of Deeds.
As noted above, the Site is 25 feet wide at the shoreline. The applicant proposes to extend
its dock, pier and float to 32 feet from the mean high water – a distance that is 250% more than
the 12.5 foot distance authorized by the Town regulations. We urge the Committee not to
approve this variance request, especially where there is an existing float only 16.5 feet from the
proposed float, and where the docks on abutting properties are compliant with the requirements
of Section 703-4(J)(1). The applicant has failed to demonstrate that a variance is appropriate, and
the proposed dock and pier would be a threat to safety and navigation in an area that is already
congested.
Waterways Committee
c/o Brian W. Taylor, Harbormaster
Town of Barnstable
October 21, 2025
Page 3
#18603495v1
An Elevated, Permanent Pier Is Inconsistent With The Surrounding Docks And With The
Town’s Regulations
The applicant has proposed an elevated, fixed pier that will be supported by four
permanent 12-inch piles. This proposal is inconsistent with the existing conditions, both on the
applicant’s and the abutters’ properties. All three properties have seasonal ramps and floats.
Moreover, the Town’s regulations at 703-5(B) emphasize that seasonal ramps and floats are
preferred over permanent fixed piers because seasonal piers create less of an impact on the
environmental resource areas, due to the additional negative impacts of fixed piers. We urge the
Waterways Committee to recommend that the proposal be amended so it is limited to a (smaller)
seasonal ramp and float(s).
The Site Plan Misrepresents The Location Of A Ramp And Float On The Wallace Property
The Site Plan shows the proposed dock and float as well as existing ramps and floats at
the Wallace Property (112 Long Beach Road) and the Monahan Property (98 Long Beach Road).
The Site Plan includes a so-called "Reference Line” that purports to represent the seaward extent
of existing docks, floats and vessels into the channel, including the two ramps and floats on the
Wallace Property. However, the Site Plan mischaracterizes the western ramp and float on the
Wallace Property; the Site Plan shows western ramp and float extending further into the river
than the eastern ramp and float. This is not accurate. Attached is an aerial photo that shows all
three of the relevant properties. The aerial photo clearly shows that the western ramp and float on
the Wallace Property is shorter than the eastern ramp and float. Why is this important? Because
by increasing the length of the western ramp and float, the “Reference Line” relied on by the
applicant is pushed further into the channel, allowing the applicant to take advantage of a greater
reach into the river for its proposed Project. The Committee should be aware that the Reference
Line, if created based on locations shown in the aerial photo, would run through the middle of
the vessel shown on the Site Plan docked at the Site.
For the foregoing reasons my clients respectfully request that the Waterways Committee
recommend against approval of the proposed Project.
Sincerely yours,
Daniel J. Bailey
Daniel J. Bailey
DJB/smg
cc: Sarah F. Alger, Esq.
David and Patricia Wallace
Carol Anne Cushing and Sharon Monahan