Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My Public Portal
About
Select Board Meeting Packet - 09.26.22- Amended
CAPE COD REGIONAL GOVERNMENT ASSEMBLY OF DELEGATES BARNSTABLE COUNTY COMPLEX SUPERIOR COURTHOUSE 3195 MAIN STREET – ROUTE 6A P.O. BOX 427 BARNSTABLE, MA 02630 Assembly Delegates Speaker: Patrick Princi (Barnstable) Deputy Speaker: Mary Chaffee (Brewster) Dean: John Ohman (Dennis) J. Terence Gallagher (Eastham) Daniel Gessen (Falmouth) Lilli-Ann Green (Wellfleet) Jon R. Fuller (Orleans) Elizabeth Harder (Harwich) James Killion (Sandwich) Thomas O’Hara (Mashpee) Brian O’Malley (Provincetown) Randi Potash (Chatham) George Slade (Bourne) Sallie Tighe (Truro) Susan Warner (Yarmouth) Clerk of the Assembly Owen Fletcher (508) 375-6761 owen.fletcher @barnstable county.org Electronically September 15, 2022 Barnstable County Town Select Boards Barnstable Town Council Dear Select Board Members and Barnstable Town Councilors: On September 21, 2022 at 4:00 p.m., the Barnstable County Assembly of Delegates will hold a hybrid (in-person and remote) public hearing on Proposed Ordinance 22-24, to amend Ordinance 22-07 which allocated $10 million for distributions to towns from funds received by Barnstable County under the American Rescue Plan Act of 2021 (ARPA). Ordinance 22-07 prohibited towns from expending funds received from the County under the ordinance: 1) for the provision of government services to the extent of the reduction in revenue due to the COVID–19 public health emergency as defined in the ARPA Final Rule or subsequent updates; or 2) to respond to workers performing essential work during the COVID-19 public health emergency by providing premium pay to eligible workers. In the four months since the County opened its online ARPA Portal only six of the Cape’s fifteen towns have submitted applications for funds. The towns of Barnstable, Bourne, Falmouth, Mashpee, Sandwich, and Yarmouth have applied – Cape Cod’s six largest towns by population. The other nine towns, with allocations totaling nearly $3.3 million have not yet submitted applications. Dennis Delegate John Ohman, Chair of the Assembly’s Standing Committee on Finance, and Chatham Delegate Randi Potash introduced Proposed Ordinance 22-24 at a recent meeting of the full Assembly. It would remove the language in the original ordinance prohibiting towns from using the revenue loss category to expend funds for the full array of government services. On behalf of the full Assembly, I ask you to consider attending this public hearing either in- person or remotely through Microsoft Teams to testify or make public comment on this proposed ordinance. You also can provide written comments to the Assembly’s Clerk, Owen Fletcher. You can reach him at (508) 375-6761 or owen.fletcher@barnstablecounty.org for further details if you have any questions. I look forward to hearing from you. Sincerely Patrick Princi, Speaker Barnstable County Assembly of Delegates Page 1 of 3 BARNSTABLE COUNTY In the Year Two Thousand Twenty-Two Ordinance 22-07 The Cape Cod regional government, known as Barnstable county, hereby ordains; Section 1. 1.a The sum of $10,000,000 shall be expended for distributions to towns in Barnstable County and shall be derived from funds received by Barnstable County under the American Rescue Plan Act of 2021 (ARPA). 1.b. Barnstable County shall directly distribute the following funds to each town under Section 1.a. using the mathematical formulation outlined in the following table: Town 2020 Federal Census Population Town Population as % of County Population $10M ARPA Disbursement Allocated Per Capita Town Grouping by % of County Population Percent of Disbursement Reallocated by Population Reallocation Amount Truro 2,454 1.07% $107,163.44 1%‐2% 30% $32,149.03 Wellfleet 3,566 1.56% $155,723.24 1%‐2% 30% $46,716.97 Provincetown 3,664 1.60% $160,002.79 1%‐2% 30% $48,000.84 Eastham 5,752 2.51% $251,183.43 2%‐3% 20% $50,236.69 Orleans 6,307 2.75% $275,419.66 2%‐3% 20% $55,083.93 Chatham 6,594 2.88% $287,952.63 2%‐3% 20% $57,590.53 Brewster 10,318 4.51% $450,575.56 4%‐5% 10% $45,057.56 Harwich 13,440 5.87% $586,909.82 5%‐6% 5% $29,345.49 Dennis 14,674 6.41% $640,797.22 6%‐7% 1% $6,407.97 Mashpee 15,060 6.58% $657,653.41 6%‐7% 1% $6,576.53 Sandwich 20,259 8.85% $884,687.94 8%‐9%‐4% ‐$35,387.52 Bourne 20,452 8.93% $893,116.04 8%‐9%‐4% ‐$35,724.64 Yarmouth 25,023 10.93% $1,092,726.51 10%‐11%‐4.57% ‐$49,965.94 Falmouth 32,517 14.20% $1,419,981.14 14%‐15%‐6% ‐$85,198.87 Barnstable 48,916 21.36% $2,136,107.18 >20%‐8% ‐$170,888.57 County 228,996 100.00% $10,000,000.00 Average 15,266 6.67% 1.c. The amount of funds to be directly distributed to each town under section 1.a. shall be allocated as follows: Barnstable County Ordinance 22-07 Page 2 of 3 Town Amount Barnstable $1,965,218.61 Bourne $857,391.40 Brewster $495,633.11 Chatham $345,543.15 Dennis $647,205.19 Eastham $301,420.11 Falmouth $1,334,782.27 Harwich $616,255.31 Mashpee $664,229.94 Orleans $330,503.59 Provincetown $208,003.63 Sandwich $849,300.42 Truro $139,312.48 Wellfleet $202,440.22 Yarmouth $1,042,760.57 Total $10,000,000.00 Section 2. 2.a. All funds expended for direct distribution to towns in Barnstable County derived from funds received under ARPA shall be applied for through the Barnstable County ARPA Application Portal (ARPA.barnstablecounty.org) 2.b. Said funds are to be expended by towns only for the purposes and in the ways set forth in the United States Department of the Treasury Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery Funds Final Rule (ARPA Final Rule) effective on April 1, 2022 or any subsequent directives issued, except towns shall not expend those funds: (i) for the provision of government services to the extent of the reduction in revenue due to the COVID–19 public health emergency as defined in the ARPA Final Rule or subsequent updates; or (ii) to respond to workers performing essential work during the COVID19 public health emergency by providing premium pay to eligible workers Section 3. An amount not to exceed $617,664 may be expended by Barnstable County for the purpose of managing and administering funds received under the American Rescue Plan Act of 2021 for the period of May 25, 2021 through June 30, 2023 and shall be derived from those funds Barnstable County Ordinance 22-07 Page 3 of 3 Adopted by the Assembly of Delegates on April 20, 2022 ____________________________ Patrick Princi, Speaker Assembly of Delegates Section 4. No additional ordinance shall be required for funds expended for distributions to towns in Barnstable County under Section 1 of this ordinance, or for funds expended for management and administration under Section 3 of this ordinance Section 5. Barnstable County shall utilize the Ordinance Process provided in Section 1-6, Section 2-8, and Section 3-8 of the Barnstable County Home Rule Charter to expend any and all funds received by the County under ARPA not authorized to be expended in this ordinance Approved by the Board of Regional Commissioners on April 27, 2022 ________________________ _______________________ _______________________ Sheila Lyons, Chair Ronald Bergstrom, Vice Chair Mark Forest, Commisioner BARNSTABLE COUNTY In the Year Two Thousand Twenty-Two Proposed Ordinance 22-24 Amending Ordinance 22-07 allocating $10 million for distributions to towns from funds received by Barnstable County under the American Rescue Plan Act of 2021 (ARPA) WHEREAS, Section 2.b. of Ordinance 22-07 prohibits towns from expending funds received from Barnstable County under Section 1.c. of said ordinance for the provision of government services to the extent of the reduction in revenue due to the COVID–19 public health emergency as defined in the ARPA Final Rule or subsequent updates; and WHEREAS, permitting towns to apply for funds under Ordinance 22-07 and expend them for the full array of government services will help ensure every town can use its total allocated funding under Section 1.c. NOW, THEREFORE, The Cape Cod regional government, known as Barnstable county, hereby ordains; SECTION 1. Ordinance 22-07 is hereby amended by striking out section 2.b. and inserting in place thereof the following section: 2.b. Said funds are to be expended by towns only for the purposes and in the ways set forth in the United States Department of the Treasury Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery Funds Final Rule (ARPA Final Rule) effective on April 1, 2022 or any subsequent directives issued, except towns shall not expend those funds to respond to workers performing essential work during the COVID19 public health emergency by providing premium pay to eligible workers Introduced by Dennis Delegate John Ohman and Chatham Delegate Randi Potash at a regular meeting of the Assembly of Delegates on September 7, 2022. Archive d: Tuesday, September 20, 2022 1:54:04 PM From: Chris Miller Se nt: Mon, 19 Sep 2022 21:54:02 +0000Authentication To: Peter Lombardi Subje ct: Fwd: Baker-Polito Administration Invests $12.6 Million in Coastal Community Resilience Se ns itivity: Normal Inter-municipal shoreline management... -- Chris Miller, Director Brewster Department of Natural Resources Fro m: Bowie, Patricia (EEA) <patricia.bowie@mass.gov> Se nt: Monday, September 19, 2022, 5:32 P M To: Bowie, P atricia (EEA) <patricia.bowie@state.ma.us> Subje ct: Baker-P olito Administration Invests $12.6 Million in Coastal Community Resilience Good afternoon, It was great to s ee many of you in Plymouth today for the announcement of our FY23 Coas tal Resilience Grant awards . We are looking forward to working with you on thes e great projects! I will be in touch with you all s oon to execute a contract and coordinate a meeting to review your Scope of Work. Sincerely, Tricia From: Wal l , Troy (EEA) <Troy.Wall2@mass.gov> Sent: Monday, Se ptember 19, 2022 4:07 PM Subject: FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: Baker-Polito Admi ni strati on Inve sts $12.6 Million i n Coastal Community Resilience FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: September 19, 2022 CONTACT Troy Wall Troy.Wall2@Mas s .Gov Baker-Polito Administration Invests $12.6 Million in Coastal Community Resilience BOSTON – To aid Massachusetts’ coastal communities in preparing for severe coastal storms and the impacts of climate change, including storm surge, flooding, erosion, and sea level rise, the Baker-Polito Administration today announced the awarding of $12.6 million in grants to support 27 local planning and shoreline management efforts. The funding, provided through the Executive Office of Energy and Environmental Affairs’ (EEA) Office of Coastal Zone Management (CZM), has been awarded to Barnstable, Boston, Brewster, Chatham, Chilmark, Cohasset, Duxbury Beach Reservation, Inc., Gosnold, House of Seven Gables Settlement Association, Ipswich, Manchester-by-the-Sea, Marblehead, Marshfield, Mass Audubon, Mattapoisett, N ahant, New Bedford, Orleans, Plymouth, Provincetown, Salem, Scituate, Wareham, Wellfleet, and the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution. Additional municipal partners of these projects include Braintree, Chilmark, Dennis, Duxbury, Eastham, Falmouth, Truro, and Winthrop. “Coastal communities in Massachusetts face increasing risks to infrastructure, buildings, and natural resources due to coastal storms and climate change,” s aid Gove rnor Charlie Bake r. “We have been focused on investing in climate change solutions since taking office, and we commend local leaders for their forward-thinking planning and action with these Coastal Resilience Grant projects.” “The Coastal Resilience Grant Program provides valuable technical and financial assistance to municipalities and nonprofit organizations to help address local issues,” said Lie ute nant Gove rnor Karyn Polito. “Our Administration remains committed to supporting important long-term planning, infrastructure adaptations, and shoreline restoration efforts to improve the resilience of our coastline.” CZM’s Coastal Resilience Grant Program provides funding and technical assistance for local efforts to evaluate vulnerabilities to climate impacts, increase community awareness, and understanding of these issues, plan for changing conditions, redesign vulnerable community facilities and infrastructure, and restore shoreline systems through non-structural approaches. Grants may fund feasibility assessments, public outreach, design, permitting, construction, and monitoring of projects that enhance or create natural buffers to erosion and flooding. Including the grants announced today, the Baker-Polito Administration has now invested $35.7 million in 182 coastal resilience improvement projects through the Coastal Resilience Grant Program since 2015. Funding through the program has supported comprehensive planning, infrastructure retrofits, and shoreline restoration projects to reduce wave energy, erosion, and flooding impacts. “Massachusetts residents and visitors to the Commonwealth’s coast will significantly benefit from these Coastal Resilience Grants through reduced exposure to flooding and more resilient beaches,” s aid Ene rgy and Environme ntal Affairs Se cre tary Be th Card. “These grants serve as another great example of the Baker-Polito Administration’s dedication to environmental and climate resilience initiatives, and demonstrate a continued commitment to protecting the Commonwealth’s invaluable coast.” “The Office of Coas tal Zone Management works hand-in-hand with local and reg ional partners to addres s a wide rang e of coas tal res ilience challenges,” said CZM Director Lisa Berry Engler. “We congratulate all of the grant recipients and look forward to another year of s ucces s ful projects and the s ubstantial benefits they will bring for many years to come.” The 27 projects receiving a total of $12.6 million in Coas tal Resilience Grants are: Barnstable Sandy Neck Beach Facility Preliminary Design and Permitting, $128,127 The Town of Barns table will des ign and initiate permitting for nature-based meas ures and a reconfiguration of the Sandy Neck Beach Facility to enhance s torm damage protection to infras tructure, wetlands , and endangered s pecies habitat areas . Boston Technical Analysis and Resilient Schematic Design Options for Dorchester’s Waterfront (Tenean Beach and Conley Street), $300,000 The City of Bos ton will advance previous climate vulnerability as ses sments to further analyze site conditions to addres s a critical flood entry point in Dorches ter. The project will develop s chematic des igns to protect the waterfront and community from future sea level ris e and coas tal s torms . Brewster, Den nis and Orleans Intermunicipal Shoreline Management for Southeastern Cape Cod Bay, $288,414 The Towns of Brews ter, Dennis , and Orleans will partner on developing a comprehens ive, s cience-bas ed framework for managing the 14.5-mile shoreline between Rock Harbor in Orleans and Bas s Hole in Dennis . Chatham Environmental Permitting for Current Redirection Structures and Nourishment of Crescent Beach, $86,732 To mitigate s ignificant s hoaling within the Stage Harbor entrance channel and erosion of Cres cent Beach, the Town of Chatham will undertake environmental permitting for temporary s tructures that redirect tidal currents combined with beach nourishment. Chatham, on behalf of t he P leasant Bay Alliance Pleasant Bay Living Shorelines: Jackknife Beach Salt Marsh Restoration, $82,690 The Town of Chatham, on behalf of the Pleas ant Bay Alliance, will complete permitting and prepare cons truction documents for a living s horeline project that will enhance fringing s alt mars h and provide eros ion protection at the Jackknife Beach recreational area. Chilmark Dune Restoration on Menemsha Public Beach, $205,937 The Town of Chilmark will cons truct a 200-foot dune res toration project along Menemsha Public Beach. The project will reduce s and overwas hing across the parking lot and into Menems ha Harbor and provide increased s torm damage protection and flood control for landward areas . Cohasset Cohasset Cove and James Brook Watershed Flood Vulnerability Assessment and Resiliency Strategies, $161,925 The Town of Cohas s et will as s es s the vulnerability of the Wastewater Treatment Plant and Influent Pump Station located in Jacob’s Meadow and other public as s ets to current and future flooding conditions within the Cohas s et Cove and James Brook Waters hed. The project will develop res iliency s trategies to mitigate flooding ris ks to these critical local and reg ional res ources . Duxbury Beach Reservat ion, Inc. Beach Nourishment and Dune Enhancement at Duxbury Beach Reservation, $1,800,000 The Duxbury Beach Res ervation, Inc., will cons truct a 2,750-foot beach and dune nourishment project in front of the Duxbury Pavilion to provide increased s torm damage protection and flood control to Duxbury Bay. Duxbury Beach Reservat ion, Inc., Braintree, Chilmark, Falmouth and Wint hrop Comprehensive Monitoring of Cobble Berms, $253,225 The Duxbury Beach Res ervation, Inc., in partners hip with the Towns of Braintree, Chilmark, Falmouth, and Winthrop and the Stone Living Lab, will conduct comprehens ive monitoring of recently cons tructed cobble berms to increas e understanding of the des ig n and performance of thes e nature-based approaches to s horeline manag ement. Gosnold Gosnold Fuel Resilience Project - Construction, $573,398 The Town of Gos nold will ins tall a new above-ground fuel s torage system that incorporates s ea level ris e cons iderations to replace recently removed underground tanks . Providing a res ilient s ource of fuel for ves s els , vehicles , and home heating is critical to res idents and vis itors on the is land. House of Sev en Gables Settlement Association Preserving History: Assessments and Climate Adaptations at the House of Seven Gables, $509,919 The Hous e of Seven Gables will prepare an adaptation plan that identifies s hort-, medium-, and long-term actions to improve the res ilience of its campus and building s to anticipated changes in g roundwater elevation, precipitation, storm intens ity, and s ea level rise. Ipswich Building Climate Resilience Through Adaptation at the Crane Estate - Argilla Road Adaptation Permitting, $113,160 The Town of Ips wich and The Trus tees of Res ervations will continue permitting efforts for the Arg illa Road Adaptation project, which aims to elevate Argilla Road and implement nature-bas ed des igns to provide a s torm-res ilient trans ition to adjacent wetlands and res tore upland wetlands to full function through tidal exchange. Manchester-by-t he-S ea Coastal Vulnerability Action Plan, $175,132 The Town of Manches ter-by-the-Sea will develop a conceptual action plan to reduce coastal flood ris ks in the downtown inner harbor waterfront. The project will develop alternatives for protecting critical as s ets including the Town Hall, was tewater treatment plant, and downtown commercial dis trict. Marblehead Public Access and Protection for the Marblehead Municipal Light Department and Adjoining Public Lands, $523,220 The Town of Marblehead will continue public outreach, advance des ign plans , and begin permitting for infras tructure retrofits to reduce flooding impacts along the s horeline encompas s ing the Municipal Light Department and adjacent properties . Marshfield an d Duxbury Marshfield and Duxbury Beach and Dune Nourishment - Permitting and Beneficial Reuse Facilitation, $70,598 The Towns of Mars hfield and Duxbury will continue permitting efforts to implement beach and dune nouris hment projects at vulnerable coas tal beaches along the towns ’ eas t-facing s horelines . The towns will als o continue public outreach to update the communities on the project and its public benefits . Mass Audub on Feasibility Study for Shoreline Restoration and Infrastructure Adaptations to Increase Coastal Resilience at Eastern Point Wildlife Sanctuary, $96,824 Mass Audubon will examine the feas ibility of s horeline res toration and infras tructure adaptations to the Eas tern Point Wildlife Sanctuary and the terminal portion of Eas tern Point Boulevard in Glouces ter. Mattapoiset t Reopening Old Slough Road for Vehicle Travel in Emergencies - Year 2, $585,000 The Town of Mattapois ett will finalize des ign plans , permit, and cons truct improvements to Old Slough Road, which will be us ed as an emergency route for vehicles traveling between the Point Connett and Angelica Point communities . Thes e communities are currently acces s ed by Angelica Avenue, a single, low-lying road that is threatened by flooding from coas tal s torms and s ea level rise. Nahant Forty Steps Beach - Conceptual Shore Protection Design, $96,900 The Town of Nahant will evaluate alternative s trategies for s hore and coas tal bank protection at Forty Steps Beach. The project will develop a conceptual des ig n for the preferred alternative and initiate permitting dis cus s ions with agencies . New Bedford West Rodney French Boulevard Beach Nourishment - Finalize Permitting, Design Plans and Contract Document Preparation, $150,830 The City of New Bedford will complete environmental permitting and prepare final des ign plans and contract documents for the future cons truction of the Wes t Rodney French Boulevard beach nouris hment project. The proposed nourishment will help provide erosion protection to critical infras tructure located in the roadway. Orleans Rock Harbor Commercial Wharf Fuel System Improvements, $599,516 The Town of Orleans will addres s the vulnerability of existing marine fuel facilities by removing underground fuel tanks located in a vulnerable area and replacing them with two new above-ground units in a s afer and more landward location. Plymouth Plymouth Long Beach Mixed Sediment Nourishment, $2,000,000 The Town of Plymouth will nouris h a 2,000-foot s ection of Long Beach with s and, gravel, and cobble to addres s impacts of increas ingly s evere storms that threaten properties and infras tructure on the barrier s pit and along the Plymouth Harbor. Provincetown Ryder Street Beach Dune Enhancement Project - Finalize Permitting, Design Plans and Contract Document Preparation, $80,355 The Town of Provincetown will develop final des ign plans , cons truction s pecifications , and a monitoring and maintenance plan for a dune enhancement project along a 250-foot s ection of Ryder Street Beach to withstand storm events and improve coas tal s torm damag e protection and flood control to the downtown area. Salem Palmer Cove Resiliency Enhancements and Community Engagement on Climate Change and Emergency Preparedness, $480,485 The City of Salem will evaluate, permit, and implement adaptation meas ures to mitigate near-term coas tal flooding ris ks while als o working to advance des ig n plans and cost estimates for long-term res iliency improvements to the seawall and revetment at Palmer Cove Park. The project will als o continue to engage the community on climate chang e and dis as ter preparednes s . Scituate North Scituate Beach Nourishment - Design Plans, Contract Document, and Construction, $1,999,990 The Town of Scituate will prepare final des ign plans and contract documents and construct a portion of the North Scituate Beach nouris hment project to mitigate the impact of coas tal s torms and s ea level ris e over the next 20 to 30 years. The project will include public meeting s to communicate project purpos e, expectations , and updates. Wareham Resilient Main Street, $199,918 The Town of Wareham will develop a conceptual plan for implementable adaptation meas ures that can reduce flood ris k to the Main Street commercial district. The project will increas e public unders tanding of the vulnerability of the area and explore nature-based s olutions . Wellfleet Increasing Coastal Resiliency Through Intermunicipal Shoreline Management: Phase 3, $546,180 The Town of Wellfleet, in partners hip with the Towns of Eastham, Provincetown, and Truro, will continue a multi-phas e project to purs ue a regional approach to s horeline management for Eas tern Cape C od Bay. The project will develop a regional s and management prog ram and public data portal and finalize conceptual des ign s trategies for four low-lying roads . Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution Resilient Woods Hole - Phase 2: Demonstrating the Power of a Public-Private Blue Economy Village Partnership in Implementing Community Climate Resiliency Solutions, $499,981 The Woods Hole Oceanographic Ins titution will continue to work in partners hip with the Town of Falmouth, Marine Biological Laboratory, and Northeast Fis heries Science Center to des ign and cons truct floodproofing meas ures in near-term critical flood entry points , evaluate the feas ibility of a dune res toration project on Stoney Beach, and continue public outreach to build s upport for infras tructure adaptations . “Grateful to the Baker Adminis tration and Coas tal Zone Management for inves ting in the commonwealth’s invaluable coas tline,” said Plymouth State Represen t at iv e Mathew Mu rat ore (R-Plymouth). “Thrilled that Plymouth was awarded a $2,000,000 Coas tal Res ilience Grant to res tore a s ection of Long Beach, which will address storm impacts and better protect the community.” “Mas sachusetts coas tlines are increas ingly threatened by stronger storms and higher s eas. The coas tal res ilience g rant program has been a resounding s uccess in funding projects that protect our coas tal infras tructure from thes e ris ks ,” said State Representative Kat hleen LaNatra (D-Kingston). “I am thrilled to s ee Plymouth receive funding to nouris h Long Beach and maintain it as an attraction for locals and touris ts alike. Thank you to the Baker-Polito Adminis tration for this inves tment." “These funds will greatly as s is t the Duxbury Beach Res ervation with planning and preparing Duxbury’s coas tline for the increas e in coas tal storms ” said State Representative Josh Cutler (D-Duxbury). “Protecting our coas tline helps our residents and local bus ines s es in Duxbury bay alike.” The Mass achus etts Office of C oas tal Z one Management is the lead policy and planning agency on coas tal and ocean is s ues within the Executive Office of Energy and Environmental Affairs . Through planning, technical and grant ass istance, and public information programs , C Z M s eeks to balance the impacts of human activity with the protection of coas tal and marine res ources . The agency’s work includes helping coastal communities addres s the challenges of s torms, s ea level ris e, and other effects of climate change; working with s tate, regional, and federal partners to balance current and new us es of ocean waters while protecting ocean habitats and promoting s us tainable economic development; and partnering with communities and other organizations to protect and res tore coas tal water quality and habitats . ### 1 COASTAL RESILIENCE GRANT PROGRAM FY23 RFR ENV 23 CZM 02 Applicant: Town of Brewster Address: Brewster Department of Natural Resources. 1657 Main Street. Brewster, MA 02631 Project manager: Name: Chris Miller, Director , Department: Brewster Department of Natural Resources Email: cmiller@brewster-ma.gov Phone: 508-896-4546 Type of resilience project: Proactive Planning Project title: Intermunicipal Shoreline Management for Southeastern Cape Cod Bay Total project cost: $331,442 Match amount (include percentage of total project cost): $43,028(12.9 %) Grant amount requested: $288,414 Project summary The proposed two-year project is modeled after the successes of Increasing Coastal Resiliency Through Intermunicipal Shoreline Management , a multi-phase CZM Coastal Resilience project to pursue a regional approach to the management of the eastern Cape Cod Bay shoreline . This project seeks to apply the lessons learned from the above-mentioned project to pursue a regional approach to the management challenges facing the towns of Dennis, Brewster, and Orleans face along the 14.5 mile, southeastern shoreline of Cape Cod Bay. This initial step in addressing the complexities of intermunicipal shoreline management will focus on establishing a Memorandum of Agreement to pursue uniformly sound management principles and responsible stewardship along this shoreline; identifying management strategies for the development of a uniform, science-based, shoreline management framework to maximize and sustain the coastal resiliency of Cape Cod Bay; and developing regional science-based datasets characterizing coastal resources, human use, shoreline resilience and the regulatory considerations for shoreline projects along the shared three-town shoreline. It is envisioned that subsequent phases of this project will further refine and build on the framework and outcomes of this proposed project and permit the town-partnership to implement practices that build on similarities in management approach to maximiz e the use and application of the developed regional science-based data in a manner that fosters open collaboration between the towns, other organizations, and the public. 2 1. Coastal Hazards Management Dennis, Brewster , and Orleans are all vulnerable to a wide range of coastal hazards that threaten life, property, natural resources, and infrastructure. To confront these threats, the towns have completed Hazard Mitigation Plans and the Municipal Vulnerability Planning process. These planning processes identified that all three towns are particularly vulnerable to major coastal erosion and flooding associated with storms. As made evident by successive northeast storms in 2018, these towns are not only beginning to experience frequent and severe impacts from coastal storms, but chronic flooding related to nuisance tides, sea level rise, and climate change. In response to these threats the three towns, through their Conservation Commissions, are looking to explore a more comprehensive approach to beach nourishment projects that ignores municipal boundaries to protect the function of coastal dunes and provides guidance to property owners on potential hazards and mitigation strategies. Recently, working with the Center for Coastal Studies, Barnstable County completed mapping of storm tide pathways along the Cape Cod Bay shoreline from Provincetown to Sandwich. This information has allowed the towns of Dennis, Brewster, and Orleans to begin long -term planning efforts to close off low -lying inundation pathways in addition to implementing short-term emergency response measures such as road closures, sand bagging, and temporary relocation of key infrastructure until flood waters recede. Recognizing that municipal-based responses to coastal threats along an interconnected shoreline can limit the effectiveness of management decisions and result in inefficient use of resources, the towns have agreed to coordinate their efforts and pursue this grant jointly to begin implementing a proactive science-based approach to regional shoreline management for Cape Cod Bay based on consistent, uniform management techniques and principles. 2. Climate Adaptation As coastal communities with common shorelines and low -lying areas located on Cape Cod Bay, the towns or Dennis, Brewster, and Orleans have experienced the effects of climate change directly in 2015 and 2018 from powerful northeast coastal storms with high storm surges, record storm tides, significant flooding of public and private roadways and residential and commercial structures, increased frequency of upland tidal flooding damage to coastal infrastructure, and overburdened stormwater management systems. Recognizing that the drivers of coastal change do not follow political boundaries, these three towns are seeking funding to begin the process of implementing regional approach to shoreline management. With their local economies dependent on similar features of the natural and built environment, the desire of these communities to approach shoreline management regionally minimizes the potential for well-intentioned but conflicting policies and strategies. The ability of the towns to act together to promote consistent and uniform shoreline management strategies, particularly w ithin a period of sea level rise and climate change, is a critical component of their plan to increase the long-term resiliency of their common shared shoreline. This proposal builds on the lessons learned by the towns of Eastham, Wellfleet, Truro, 3 and Provincetown, who have been working with the CZM Grant program to implement a regional approach to shoreline management. In addition to this cooperative effort, these three Cape Cod Bay communities have continued to participate actively in the following climate adaptation efforts: Brewster • In 2016, Brewster completed a Coastal Adaptation Strategy. • In 2018, Brewster received an MVP Planning grant from EEOEA. • In 2019, Brewster completed its MVP Action Plan, was designated as an MVP community, and completed a Coastal Resource Management Plan (Phase I). • In 2020, Brewster partnered with several other Cape towns on an EEA Planning Assistance Program Grant “Responding to Climate Change”, coordinated by the Cape Cod Commission to develop a coastal resiliency model bylaw. • In 2021, Brewster partnered with several other Cape towns on an MVP Action Grant “Regional Low-lying Road Assessment and Feasibility,” coordinated by the Cape Cod Commission . That regional work is ongoing. • In 2022, Brewster completed its first Hazard Mitigation Plan. Dennis • In 2015, Dennis completed a Hazard Mitigation Plan. • In May 2020, Dennis submitted their final MVP report. • In October 2020 Dennis was designated as MVP communities. • In 2021, Dennis was awarded an MVP Action Grant for Pound Pond Flood Mitigation & Storm Drainage Improvements • In 2022, Dennis began steps with FEMA to be part of the Community Rating System. Orleans • In 2019, Orleans completed its MVP Action Plan and was designated as an MVP community. • In 2021, Orleans partnered with several other Cape towns on an MVP Action Grant “Regional Low -lying Road Assessment and Feasibility,” coordinated by the Cape Cod Commission. That regional work is ongoing. • In 2022, Orleans updated its local flood plain zoning to comply with FEMA requirements and began working with FEMA to participate in the Community Rating System 3. Need for Assistance Despite demonstrated benefits, there are significant obstacles for projects attempting to manage shorelines regionally. Often persuading residents to relinquish perceived or real autonomy required for successful regional efforts can be a daunting task. Small municipalities often lack the resources 4 and funding to formulate and conduct detailed, science-based, multijurisdictional management efforts. Recognizing the extraordinary demands imposed on local funding by the recent pandemic, funding for this ongoing project may be increasingly difficult to secure, particularly given the many competing interests for town funds. For th ese reasons, the CZM Coastal Resilience grant program offers the most effective avenue (technically and financially) for achieving a regional approach that will increase and sustain coastal resiliency along the shorelines of the four partnering towns. In addition, the project will overlap with 2 environmental justice neighborhoods in Brewster (Figure 1) further emphasizing the need for grant funds for this project. 4. Project Description Recognizing that the characteristics contributing to the resiliency and ability of shorelines to respond naturally to coastal hazards operate independently of municipal boundaries, this project focuses on ways to facilitate and promote consistent, synergistic, and uniform management techniques that treat the Cape Cod Bay shorelines of Dennis, Brewster , and Orleans as one common planning area (see Figure 1). This intermunicipal shoreline management approach is organized around the concept of littoral cells. Natural coastal compartments that contain a complete cycle of sedimentation including sources, transport paths, and sinks, littoral cell boundaries delineate geographical areas in which sediment budgets are balanced (See Berman, 2011, for full discussion). Since littoral cell boundaries do not align with municipal boundaries and frequently encompass multiple towns, their use for a regional shoreline management approach has proven to be an effective approach for increasing coastal resilience management strategies. The goal of this work is to develop a comprehensive framework for managing approximately 14.5 miles of shoreline from Rock Harbor in Orleans to Bass Hole in Dennis, in an effective, mutually beneficial manner, in order to maximize the towns’ ability to work with the natural processes and drivers of coastal change for proactive planning and regional sediment management. The Dennis (~7.5. miles) and Brewster (~6.0 miles) shorelines, make up the majority of the planning area, have the majority of coastal structures, and are located in the sediment source area of the Brewster littoral cell. Although it has limited coastal structures and a small shoreline length of approximately one mile, the town of Orleans is eager to partner with Brewster and Dennis to the extent practicable, allowing for a regional management perspective that will extend to the area of the sediment sink located at the easterly end of the Brewster cell. These three towns will collaborate to assess the characteristics of their shared Cape Cod Bay shoreline. The basis for this approach will require knowledge and understanding of baseline conditions that relate to the natural physical characteristics of the shoreline and adjacent lands, human alterations to the shoreline, shoreline resilience, and the existing regulatory structure and management approaches in each town. After baseline conditions have been determined and assessed, implementation of a natural systems-based approach to shoreline management can begin. Individual tasks that make up the scope of work for the proposal are described below. Tasks 5 are organized into five major categories. As reflected in the budget spreadsheets and project timeline, they are divided into sub-tasks to accommodate the complexities of a multi-year, nonlinear project. Task 1: Coastal Structures Inventory and Beach Nourishment Research A significant component of this project focuses on identifying existing baseline conditions that influence current municipal responses to shoreline management opportunities and challenges. Under this task the three-town shoreline will be surveyed to update and compile location and condition information for existing coastal engineering structures. In addition, available information relative to beach nourishment activities reviewed to compile a summary of volumes and requirements. Additionally, an analysis of current and future shoreline nourishment requirements will be completed to provide an estimate of the demand for the shared three-town shoreline. Subtask 1.1 Coastal Structures Inventory Inventories of public and private coastal structures were last compiled approximately 10 years ago in two projects overseen by the Massachusetts Department of Conservation and Recreation (DCR) and the Massachusetts Office of Coastal Zone Management (CZM). Since the completion of those projects, additional coastal engineering structures (CESs) have been approved along the three-town shoreline. Recognizing that CESs significantly limit the volume of sediment available to coastal resources within a littoral cell (e.g., beaches, intertidal areas, dunes, salt marshes), maintaining up- to-date records related to existing shoreline structures is an important baseline condition for assessing the long-term sustainability of these resources and their ability to limit storm damage and mitigate flooding associated with coastal storm tides. For these reasons, the structures inventory for the approximately 14 mile, three-town Bay shoreline will be updated based on a comprehensive field survey to obtain reliable horizontal and vertical locations of both structures included in the above inventories and structures completed in the last 10 years, to generally assess the structure’s condition, and to collect photos of each structure. Sustainable Coastal Solutions will compile an inventory spreadsheet. Working with town staff, this inventory will be supplemented with available town records where possible and compiled in a geospatial data layer (see subtask 3.2 ). Subtask 1.2 Beach Nourishment Research and Site Identification Recognizing the importance of sediment to the long-term resiliency of the Bay shoreline and its ability to play a role in storm damage prevention and flood control, working with town staff, research of available town records for approximately 368 parcels will be conducted to compile an inventory spreadsheet of current beach nourishment activities and requirements, that where possible will include information on locations, placement methods, frequencies, volumes, funding, and sediment sources. The nourishment data will be compiled in a geospatial data layer (see 6 subtask 3.2) summarizing nourishment requirements for landowners along privately owned shorelines and town nourishment activities at public landings and beaches. Subtask 1.3 Shoreline Nourishment Demand Analysis The approximately 14.5-mile project shoreline will be evaluated to identify parcels where nourishment may be required as mitigation for future CES projects. Following the work completed in Subtasks 1.1 and 1.2, the potential future demand for beach nourishment along the three-town shoreline will be estimated based on spatial analysis of properties with existing shoreline armoring and properties where future coastal engineering structures could be allowed under the state Wetlands regulations. Future nourishment volumes will be estimated using the average bank height, average long term erosion rate, and the bank length within each identified parcel. This estimated volume will be combined with the presently required beach nourishment volume identified in Subtask 1.2 to develop a working projection of potential future demands for nourishment material along the three-town shoreline. The results of this analysis will be summarized in a technical report and the geospatial data created for this analysis will be incorporated into the geodatabase discussed in Task 3. Task 2: Shoreline Management Framework The process of implementing regional shoreline management approach for the southeastern shoreline of Cape Cod Bay will rely on each town’s on-going commitment to pursue uniform, science-based, shoreline management strategies that maximize the coastal resiliency of Cape Cod Bay. With this commitment, the approach will focus on identifying s similarities in current town shoreline management strategies will be identified to begin the development of a set of consistent, resiliency-based management practices for the three-town partnership to implement individually. With the completion of Task 2,management cells, depicted as geospatial data reflecting littoral cell boundaries determined from completed CCS sediment budget studies and proximity to sediment sources and sinks to facilitate application of a uniform framework (See subtask 3.2). Subtask 2.1: Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) A Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) between the towns of Dennis, Brewster, and Orleans will be developed for Select Board approval to acknowledge each town’s commitment to pursue an intermunicipal approach to shoreline management. Specifically, the MOA will establish each towns’ intent to: • Implement practices that maximize the use, utility, and application of developed regional science-based datasets; • Pursue the development and implementation of an Intermunicipal Shoreline Management Framework that promotes a science-based approach for the management of their respective Cape Cod Bay shorelines; and • Work together in subsequent phases to pursue a common goal to improve long -term coastal resiliency through the development and implementation of common ma nagement principles 7 and policies that promote responsible stewardship of the competing uses of Cape Cod Bay coastal resources. Subtask 2.2: Regulatory Matrix Existing state and local regulations affecting the management of each town’s shoreline will be compiled into a representative database for the purpose of begin ning to develop a common approach to shoreline management for the three towns. Of particular interest will be a comparison of individual town by-laws and policies, such as those related to wetland, flood plain, or beach replenishment requirements, to identify similarities in current management approaches that can be used to implement management strategies requir ing little or no change to current town management pr actices. To facilitate the development of a uniform management framework (Subtask 2.3), regulatory matrix will be compiled for documents pertaining to shoreline management within the three towns, including the local wetland by-laws, Conservation Commission policies, regulations, and guidance documents and other appropriate documents currently used by towns to manage their shorelines. Subtask 2.3: Draft Intermunicipal Shoreline Management Framework Components Based on the similarities identified by the Regulatory Matrix and the science-based approach of the Massachusetts Wetlands Regulations, this subtask will focus on developing a set of resiliency-based management documents to be used by the Conservation Commission of each town to promote consistency in project information requirements and approval standards. Recognizing that the final document set is subject to change as the project evolves, it is currently anticipated that this subtask will compile a set of standard documents consisting of the following components: • General resiliency -based management principles and policies for use by Commissions to implement a regional management philosophy; • Uniform application and plan requirements for use by Commissions to provide guidance to applicants regarding the information requirement for projects subject to Conservation Commission review and approval; • Standard conditions reflecting the general type of activity , including general project conditions for new and replacement coastal engineering structures; and Task 3: Creation of an Intermunicipal Shoreline Management Geodatabase Recognizing that access to quality data is essential for informed decision-making, a fundamental component of this regional approach to shoreline management is the development of regional datasets that support coastal managers in the interpretation and effective communication of scientific data as it relates to shoreline management. Storing and viewing data in a spatial format is beneficial and often required to analyze and summarize information in a useful way. A spatial data format also provides methods for organizing, sharing, and compiling new data in a standardized way through attribute domains, subtypes, and representation rules. As demonstrated in Increasing Coastal Resiliency Through Intermunicipal Shoreline Management, a standardized record keeping 8 method for shoreline activities and projects (e.g., nourishment, dredging, coastal structures inventories) that affect a shared shoreline is mutually beneficial, allowing for activities to be directly compared, using the same metrics across municipal boundaries, and is essential for an intermunicipal approach to shoreline management. Currently, each town manages these types of records in varying ways with varying degrees of effectiveness. For these reasons, compiled and created data for this project will be incorporated into an intermunicipal geodatabase comprised of baseline data and data that characterize the natural and human settings of the shared Cape Cod Bay shoreline. The Intermunicipal Shoreline Management Geodatabase (ISMG) will serve as a management tool that not only houses and organizes relevant data but also aids in the visualization and interpretation of coastal processes. It is presently envisioned that future phases of this work will incorporate these data into a public web platform, allowing access and use to town staff and the public alike. Subtask 3.1: Compile and Review Existing Geospatial D ata Geospatial data from publicly available data sources (e.g., MassGIS, CZM, USGS, CCS) that focus on coastal resources, human use, shoreline resilience, and regulatory considerations for shoreline projects (e.g., Chapter 91 ) will be compiled and assessed for applicability within this intermunicipal management tool. Compiled data will be organiz ed into four key feature datasets based on the interests of the town partnership: • Planning Considerations • Sediment Management and Beach Nourishment • Salt Marsh • Emergency Preparedness Subtask 3.2: Development and Creation of Fundamental Regional Geospatial Data Following the completion of Subtask 3.1 n ew geospatial data will be created based on regional needs, the existing data disparities identified in Subtask 3.1, and the work completed in Task s 1 and 2 (e.g., beach nourishment sites, coastal structures inventory, recommended management cells). Recognizing that natural coastal processes operate independently of municipal bounda ries, this task will develop recommended management cells, constructed around the concept of littoral cell boundaries, shoreline characteristics (e.g., dredging sites, coastal resource areas) and the work completed in Tasks 1 and 2 (e.g., presence or absen ce of coastal structures, locations of beach nourishment activities, regulatory matrix). It is anticipated in subsequent phases of this project that management cells will be used specifically to address sediment management strategies (e.g., identification of the most appropriate and mutually beneficial placement of sediment along the three-town shoreline). Presently, the envisioned data layers to be created under this task include the following but are subject to change based on Subtask 3.1 and feedback from town staff : Planning Considerations 9 • Characterization of Shoreline Parcel Ownership • Elevation-Based Contemporary MHW and MLW Shorelines • Mouths of Coastal Rivers • Current approximate Chapter 91 Landward Tidelands Jurisdiction (most landward high -water line from all available contemporary sources and MassGIS historical sources) • Stillwater Elevations for Cape Cod Bay Flood Events (10yr, 50yr, 100yr floods) Sediment Management and Beach Nourishment • Coastal Structures Inventory • Parcels with the Potential to Armor (pre-1978 structures located on coastal bank) • Dredging Sites (histories, volumes, dates, disposal, etc.) • Beach Nourishment Sites • Town Managed Beaches and Landings • Net Sediment Transport • Shoreline Change (relative magnitude of change along the three-town shoreline) • Nearshore Erosion and Deposition • Recommended Management Cells Salt Marsh • Contemporary Salt Marsh • Historical Salt Marsh • Salt Marsh Change • Parcel Based Potential Accommodation Space for Salt Marsh Migration Task 4: Project Reports As a two-year project, two brief project reports will be prepared at the end of each fiscal year. At the end of year 1, a status report will be prepared describing the progress of the project, the work completed, and the year 2 work plan. At the end of year 2, a project report will be prepared summarizing project deliverables and recommended next steps for continuing the implementation of intermunicipal shoreline management principles for Cape Cod Bay. Additionally, Monthly Project Status Reports ($3,300) and Final Project Case Study ($600) will be provided as in -kind match. Task 5: Project Team Meetings To facilitate and maintain effective project communications during this project, CCS will attend quarterly project meetings with appropriate staff from the three towns and CZM’s Cape & Islands Regional Coordinator. In support of th e project, CCS will attend 4 additional meetings per year with the project manager, Brewster Natural Resources Advisory Commission and appropriate representatives from Orleans and Dennis to discuss public outreach and other project needs . Attendance at these meetings will be provided as in -kind match, $550/meeting for a total of $4400. Finally, a public meeting summarizing the project results will be held at the end of year two. 10 5. Public Benefit and Interests The natural processes and characteristics that make shorelines resilient do not follow municipal boundaries. This project looks to pursue an intermunicipal approach to shoreline management, absent town boundaries, which will promote the common and natural benefits of coastal resources in areas such as storm damage prevention, flood protection, water quality, and h abitat protection equally to achieve a greater degree of shoreline resiliency than could be achieved by each town individually. This project is modeled after an existing intermunicipal CZM Coastal Resilience project, extending and promoting the concept of regional shoreline management across Cape Cod and along the Cape Cod Bay shoreline. Importantly, intermunicipal efforts provide significant public benefit when they can be focused on common threats such as sea level rise and storm surge in the form of mutual efforts to: 1) Address the vulnerability of common shoreline areas and infrastructure; 2) Initiate a public outreach and education effort to foster a sense of urgency in terms of climate change and resilience between neighboring communities; 3) Enhance coastal flooding protection measures in areas where common solutions are required; and 4) Account for future sea level rise and climate change with a uniform, system-based approach to policies, guidelines, regulations, and planning. 6. Transferabilit y The proposed project is modeled after the successes of another intermunicipal CZM Coastal Resilience project, using the lessons learned to build a more effective approach to coordinated and regional management efforts while extending the reach of previously completed work and promoting the concept of regional shoreline management across Cape Cod. The 2011 Massachusetts Climate Change Adaptation Report notes that “effective planning and management at the regional and local levels is enhanced by current and accurate information.” This project promotes access to and use of current and accurate science-based information, through the creation of an intermunicipal management tool consisting of up-to-date regional datasets, and also advances several other science and planning actions articulated within state and regional planning documents such as: the goals of the Cape Cod Ocean Management Plan; the findings of the 2015 Coastal Erosion Commission; and the Action Items of the Cape Cod Regional Policy Plan that identify coastal processes as a component fundamental to the development of regional best management practices. 11 7. Project Timeline TasksSep 22Oct 22Nov 22Dec 22Jan 23Feb 23Mar 23Apr 23May 23Jun 23Jul 23Aug 23Sep 23Oct 23Nov 23Dec 23Jan 24Feb 24Mar 24Apr 24May 24Jun 24FISCAL YEARFY 23FY 24YEAR202220232024Estimated Grant Notification: 9/15/22Task 1: Coastal Structures Inventory & Beach Nourishment Research Sub-task 1.1: Coastal Structures InventorySub-task 1.2: Beach Nourishment Research & Site Identification Sub-task 1.3: Shoreline Nourishment Demand AnalysisTask 2: Shoreline Management FrameworkSub-task 2.1: Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) Sub-task 2.2: Regulatory Matrix Sub-task 2.3: Draft ISM Framework Components Task 3: Creation of an Intermunicipal Shoreline Management GeodatabaseSub-task 3.1: Compile & Review Existing Geospatial DataSub-task 3.2: Development of Regional Geospatial DataTask 4: Project ReportsSub-task 4.1: Monthly Project ReportsSub-task 4.2: Year 1 Project Status ReportSub-task 4.3: Year 2 Project ReportTask 5: Project Meetings Sub-task 5.1: Team MeetingsSub-task 5.2: Project ManagementSub-task 5:3: Public MeetingProject Complete: June 30, 2024 12 8. Budget – See Attachment D per RFP Guidelines 9. Project Management and Partners Project Manager: Chris Miller, Director Brewster Department of Natural Resources 1657 Main Street, Brewster, MA 02631 cmiller@brewster -ma.gov. 508-896-4546. Project Partners The Town of Brewster: The town will serve as project manager and provide in-kind support in the form of town staff time for meetings, parcel research, and working with the project team to develop and review project documents and data layers, as outlined on the Budget worksheet. (see attached letter of support). The Town of Dennis: The town will provide in-kind support in the form of town staff time for meetings, parcel research, and working with the project team to develop and review project documents and data layers, as outlined on the Budget worksheet. (see attached letter of support). The Town of Orleans : The town will provide in-kind support in the form of town staff time for meetings, parcel research, and working with the project team to develop and review project documents and data layers, as outlined on the Budget worksheet. (see attached letter of support). The Center for Coastal Studies: The Center for Coastal Studies’ Coastal Geographic Research and Applied Sciences (CGRASS) Program will co -lead efforts with project partners to develop the tasks discussed above and will provide in-kind support as described in the Scope of work. (see attached letter of support). Sustainable Coastal Solutions , Inc.: While providing input in advisory capacity for several tasks, the primary focus of Sustainable Coastal Solutions will be the evaluation of engineering structures, both public and private within the study area. Sustainable Coastal Solutions has decades of experience on Cape Cod, including many of the lower and outer Cape towns, as well as other parts of the country and that experience makes them an invaluable partner for this project. 13 Figure 1. Location map of the study area and the environmental justice neighborhoods Located within the planning area along the shared three-town Cape Cod Bay shoreline. Memorandum To: Select Boards of Brewster, Chatham, Harwich and Orleans From: Carole Ridley Date: September 15, 2022 Re: MVP Action Grant Award The Pleasant Bay Alliance has been awarded a Municipal Vulnerability Preparedness (MVP) Action Grant in the amount of $292,710 to develop a Pleasant Bay Climate Adaptation Action Plan. The Town of Chatham will administer the grant as the fiscal agent for the Alliance. The project responds to multiple top resilience threats and priority resilience actions identified in each of the four towns’ MVP plans. Project partners include: Center for Coastal Studies, Wright-Pierce, Barnstable County Cooperative Extension, and Cape Cod National Seashore. By the end of the century, tide levels in Pleasant Bay could see an increase of one to three feet due to sea level rise, with potential effects to the Nauset Barrier beach and Pleasant Bay shoreline. In additional to sea level rise, water temperatures in Pleasant Bay could increase by more than 2°F in the next 30 years. Without adaptation measures, the resulting effects could reduce community resilience, diminish public access to the water, limit the effectiveness of water protection infrastructure, and diminish the ecological functioning of the estuary. The goal of the Climate Adaptation Action Plan is to protect the integrity of estuarine ecological functions and enhance resilience of low-lying public access points and water protection infrastructure (e.g., for stormwater or wastewater management) in and around Pleasant Bay from climate-induced adverse effects. The project seeks to accomplish this goal by pursuing the following objectives: (1) Use the best available science and leading edge research tools to assess climate threats to barrier beach, salt marsh and other intertidal resources, sub-tidal eelgrass resources, inner shoreline and low- lying public access points and water protection infrastructure in Pleasant Bay. (2) Identify creative adaptation solutions that utilize best practices and maximize use of nature-based approaches to protect natural coastal processes and enhance resilience of the barrier beach, inner shoreline, and threatened resources, public water protection infrastructure (e.g., stormwater or wastewater management) and public access points. (3) Engage the diverse stakeholders in the four surrounding communities, including climate vulnerable populations, in understanding climate threats and developing a Climate Adaptation Action Plan prioritizing resilience strategies and actions necessary to achieve the project goal. Additional information will be made available to the public as the project progresses. U.S. Department of Homeland Security 500 C Street, SW Washington, DC 20472 September 13, 2022 Mr. Peter Lombardi Brewster Town Administrator 2198 Main Street Brewster, Massachusetts 02631 Dear Mr. Lombardi: The purpose of this letter is to provide you with the results of the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) Community Rating System (CRS) field verification findings based on your 5-year cycle verification. The field verification report is enclosed for your records. Congratulations! The Department of Homeland Security, Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), has determined that the Town of Brewster will increase to a Class 8 in the NFIP CRS. The floodplain management activities implemented by your community qualify it for a 10 percent discount on flood insurance premiums for most NFIP policies issued or renewed on or after April 1, 2023. This savings is a tangible result of the flood mitigation activities your community implements to protect lives and reduce property damage. The CRS rating for your community will automatically be renewed annually as long as there are no NFIP noncompliance actions, so a notification letter will not be sent every year. This annual renewal will take place as long as your community continues to implement the CRS activities you certify in your annual recertification documentation. If no additional modifications or new CRS activities are added, the next verification visit for your community will be in accordance with its established 5-year cycle. In the interim, FEMA will periodically send the NFIP/CRS Update newsletter and other notices to your CRS Coordinator to keep your community informed. I commend you on your community actions and your determination to lead your community to be more disaster resistant. This commitment enhances public safety, property protection, and protects the natural functions of floodplains, and reduces flood insurance premiums. If you have any questions or need additional information, please contact the FEMA Region I Office, CRS Coordinator Katie Rand at (617) 832-4716. Sincerely, William H. Lesser, CRS Coordinator Federal Insurance and Mitigation Administration Enclosure cc: Mr. Davis Walters, CRS Coordinator C OMMUNITY R ATING S YSTEM VERIFICATION REPORT Town of Brewster, MA Verified Class 8 NFIP Number: 250003 Cycle Date of Verification Visit: March 17, 2022 This Verification Report is provided to explain the recommendations of Insurance Services Office, Inc. (ISO) to DHS/FEMA concerning credits under the Community Rating System (CRS) for the above named community. A total of 1072 credit points are verified which results in a recommendation that the community improve from a CRS Class 9 to a CRS Class 8. The community has met all Class 8 prerequisites. The following is a summary of our findings with the total CRS credit points for each activity listed in parenthesis: Activity 310 – Construction Certificate Management: Credit is provided for having written construction certificate management procedures for all new and substantially improved/substantially damaged buildings. (38 points) Activity 420 – Open Space Preservation: Credit is provided for preserving approximately 56 percent of the Special Flood Hazard Area (SFHA) as open space and preserving open space land in a natural state. (946 points) Activity 430 – Higher Regulatory Standards: Credit is provided for enforcing regulations that require freeboard for new construction and substantial improvement. Credit is also provided for a Building Code Effectiveness Grading Schedule (BCEGS®) Classification, and regulations administration. (88 points) Section 502 - Repetitive Loss Category: The Town of Brewster, MA is a Category A community for CRS purposes and no action is required. (No credit points are applicable to this section) Activity 710 – County Growth Adjustment: All credit in the 400 series is multiplied by the growth rate of the county to account for growth pressures. The growth rate for Barnstable County, MA is 1.03. Town of Brewster, MA Page 2 NFIP #: 250003 Attached is the Community Calculations Worksheet that lists the verified credit points for the Community Rating System. CEO Name / Address: CRS Coordinator Name / Address: Peter Lombardi F. Davis Walters Town Administrator Building Commissioner 2198 Main Street 2198 Main Street Brewster, Massachusetts 02631 Brewster, Massachusetts 02631 (508) 896-3701 Date Report Prepared: May 17, 2022 Community : Town of Brewster, MA NFIP Number : 250003 720 COMMUNITY CREDIT CALCULATIONS (Cycle): CALCULATION SECTION : Verified Activity Calculations: Credit c310 38 38 c320 c330 c340 c350 c360 c370 c410 x CGA = c420 918 x CGA 1.03 = 946 c430 85 x CGA 1.03 = 88 c440 x CGA = c450 x CGA = c510 c520 c530 c540 c610 c620 c630 Community Classification Calculation: cT = total of above cT = 1072 Community Classification (from Table 110-1): Class = 8 CEO Name/Address: CRS Coordinator Name/Address: Peter Lombardi F. Davis Walters Town Administrator Building Commissioner 2198 Main Street 2198 Main Street Brewster, Massachusetts 02631 Brewster, Massachusetts 02631 (508) 896-3701 Date Report Prepared: May 17, 2022 AW-720 Archive d: Tuesday, September 20, 2022 1:53:57 PM From: Robert Moran Se nt: Mon, 19 Sep 2022 09:25:16 +0000Authentication To: Kevin Varley; Peter Lombardi Subje ct: FW: Thank you Se ns itivity: Normal FYI, BOCH CERT once again proved thei r worth ove r the weeke nd assi sting wi th the relocation and housi ng of the migrant group on Joint Base . See Chi p Reilly emai l below. From: Chi p Reilly <chi p.reilly@barnstablecounty.org> Sent: Sunday, Septe mbe r 18, 2022 5:32 AM To: 'John Kondratowi cz KZ' <jkondratowicz@chatham-ma.gov>; Ge of Deeri ng <gde e ring@orl e ansfd.com>; Justin Tavano <j tavano@chatham-ma.gov>; Robe rt Moran <rmoran@bre wste r-ma.gov>; David LeBlanc <d.leblanc@harwi chfire .com>; Dave DePasquale <DDePasquale@chatham-ma.gov> Cc: Ce rt Fi re <cert@chatham-ma.gov> Subject: Thank you Just wanted to drop a qui ck note of thanks for the CERT te am support at the base. BOCH CERT stepped up and played a valuable role f rom the onse t. The crew immediately jumped i n and started to clean up the dorms to get thi ngs ready for the clients, and the n jumped i nto accountability for the follow on support staff. A rol e MEMA di dn’t event consider until we brought i t up to the m. The re was a method to my madness, MEMA asked, and we i ntenti onally uti l i ze d the CERT teams to gi ve them some hi gh visibility e xposure . I al so had a discussion with the dire ctor about the importance of the EMPG CERT grant process and how e ssential it is. Might have dropped a hi nt about ex i sting grants i n the pipeline also. BOCH CERT i s know as the rockstars on the Cape and once agai n have prove d it. Thank you. William A. (Chip) Re illy III, M SEM Emergency Preparednes s Specialis t | Health and Environment Barns table County, Regional Government of Cape Cod Em ail chip.reilly@barns tablecounty.org | Office (774) 312-6932 | Mobile (774) 238-8525 3195 Main Street | P.O. Box 427 | Barns table, MA 02630 | www.barns tablecounty.org Select Board Mtg 9.26.2022 1 Agenda Item #8: Consent Agenda Cover Page a) Meeting Minutes: September 12, 2022 Draft of meeting minutes from the Select Board regular session meeting on September 12, 2022 have been submitted for approval. Administration Recommendation: We recommend the Select Board approve the meeting minutes as presented. b)Appointments: Sid Smith- Special Police Office; Patricia Semple- Recycling Commission Per the Chief of Police, Sid Smith is to be re-appointed as a Special Police Officer for a one-year term effective October 18, 2022, until October 17, 2023. Patricia Semple has submitted her application and followed the Select Board appointment policy for the vacant member position on the Recycling Commission. Both the Select Board liaison and Chair of the committee have recommended her appointment. This is for a 3-year term ending June 30, 2025. Administration Recommendation: We recommend the Select Board approve these appointments. c)Request for Waiver of Fee- Habitat for Humanity of Cape Cod Habitat for Humanity of Cape Cod is requesting waiver of fees from the applicable Building Department permit fees and Fire Department inspection fees for the community housing project at 26 Red Top Road. Waivers for Health Department fees are granted through the Board of Health. Administration Recommendation: We recommend the Select Board approve this fee waiver request. d)Town Landing and Public Beach Access Request: Breakwater Beach SumCo Eco-Contracting, LLC on behalf of the owner at 268 Breakwater Road, has applied for use of Town Landing and public beach access at Breakwater Beach. The Breakwater Beach parking lot will be the access point for material deliveries and over-sand travel to the beach land for the purpose of performing sand nourishment. Over-night parking for one tracked skid steer and 40 cubic yards of sand is also requested. Access will be granted from October 17, 2022 through October 21, 2022. The conditions for approval for use of Breakwater Beach are outlined in the accompanying letter, which has been drafted by Town Administration in conjunction with the Conservation Administrator. Administration Recommendation: We recommend the Board vote to authorize staff to approve this request, pending coordination with Conservation. e)Change of Manager Applications for Ocean Edge Resort & Conference Center’s Liquor Licenses. Ocean Edge Resort Ltd Partnership is requesting to change the manager of record on all three of their Liquor Licenses: an annual all alcoholic beverages license for Ocean Edge Inn and Conference Center, an annual package store license for all alcoholic beverages, and an annual Select Board Mtg 9.26.2022 2 club all alcoholic beverages license for Linx Tavern and Bar. All required paperwork and payments required by the Alcoholic Beverages Control Commission (ABCC) have been submitted. If approved by the Select Board, the request will be submitted to the ABCC for final approval. Administration Recommendation: We recommend the Select Board votes to approve the change of manager for Ocean Edge Resort Ltd Partnership. f)One Day Liquor License Applications- Brewster Sportsman’s Club and Chatham Bars Inn Farm The Brewster Sportsman’s Club is requesting a one-day liquor license for an event at their property located at 280 Tubman Road on Saturday October 15, 2022. The event will be held from 2pm – 6pm and they would like to serve beer and wine during this time to their expected 60 attendees. The Police Chief, Fire Chief and Town Administration has reviewed the application and there are no concerns with this event. Chatham Bars Inn Farm has submitted two applications for one day liquor licenses for events to be held at 3038 Main Street. Chatham Bars Inn Farm has an approved Special Event Permit through the Zoning Board of Appeals. CBI Farm has requested multiple liquor licenses this season with no issues. The events are as follows: 1.Private farm to table dinner for CBI guests only on Thursday October 6th from 4pm until 8pm. The request is to serve beer, wine and liquor to their 70 anticipated guests. 2.“Fall Frolic” a farm open house on Saturday October 8th from 10:00am until 6:00pm. The request is to serve beer, wine and liquor to the 150 anticipated attendees throughout the event. The Fire Chief, Police Chief, Health Department and Town Administration office have reviewed the applications and there are no concerns with any of the applications. The Health Department did comment that if any food will be served/offered that a temporary food service application must be submitted to them. Administration Recommendation: We recommend the Select Board votes to approve these one-day liquor license applications. g)One Day Entertainment Application: Chatham Bars Inn Farm For their “Fall Frolic” Chatham Bars Inn would like to provide acoustic music from 10:00am – 6:00pm for their expected 200-300 guests throughout the day. The Fire Chief, Police Chief, Health Department and Town Administration office have reviewed the application and parking plan and there are no concerns with the application. Administration Recommendation: We recommend the Select Board approves the one-day entertainment license. h)Request for Approval to Submit T-Mobile Hometown Grant Application on Behalf of the Town and Select Board Letter of Support The Office of the Town Administrator is requesting approval to submit an application to the T- Mobile Hometown grant program, in addition to a letter of support from the Select Board to submit along with the application. The application will be for $50,000 to fund the planning and design phase of the project to develop the former Cape Cod Sea Camps properties. Select Board Mtg 9.26.2022 3 Administration Recommendation: We recommend that the Select Board approve the request and the Chair sign the letter of support. i)Off-Season Memberships at Captains Golf Course The Golf Director of Operations and Golf Commission is recommending off-season membership rates for Brewster residents from October 1, 2022 through March 31, 2022. The off-season rate structure is: Full membership - $480.00 and Twilight membership- $200. These rates were approved at the September 13, 2022 Golf Commission meeting. Administration Recommendation: We recommend the Select Board votes to approve the off-season membership rates. j)New Town Information Technology Policies The Information Technology director has submitted updated policies that will replace the current “Computer and Internet Use” Select Board policy #35. The polices presented are consistent with MIIA IT policies and will be worth 1.5% in MIIA rewards once approved. Administration Recommendation: We recommend the Select Board approves the new information technology policies. k)Permission for access to Town property to conduct a native plant survey The Botanical Coordinator for Native Plant Trust is requesting access to a parcel of land owned by the Town of Brewster off Slough Road, around Round Pond to conduct a survey for a native plant called Plymouth rose-gentian. Trained botanists will visit the site and if needed record data and possibly collect a small sample of seed. The Conservation Commission will be required to approve the scientific study. Administration Recommendation: We recommend that the Board approve use of this parcel of land in coordination with the Conservation Commissions approval of the scientific study. l)Facility Use Request- Ellis Landing Due to this weekend’s storms, a few boats broke their moorings. One of the boats ended up high on an association beach. The Natural Resources Department is requesting permission for a tow truck to use Ellis Landing to move the boat so that it can be moored again. Administration Recommendation: We recommend that the Board approve the use of Ellis Landing. Town of Brewster 2198 Main Street Brewster, MA 02631-1898 Phone: (508) 896-3701 Fax: (508) 896-8089 Select Board 09.12.2022 www.brewster-ma.gov Page 1 of 8 Office of: Select Board Town Administrator MINUTES OF THE SELECT BOARD MEETING REGULAR SESSION DATE: September 12, 2022 TIME: 6:00 PM PLACE: Remote Participation REMOTE PARTICIPANTS: Chair Whitney, Selectperson Hoffmann, Selectperson Bingham, Selectperson Chaffee, Town Administrator Peter Lombardi, Assistant Town Administrator Donna Kalinick, James Gallaher, Alisa Magnotta, Don Keeran, Susan Broderick Call to Order, Declaration of a Quorum, Meeting Participation Statement and Recording Statement Chair Whitney called the meeting to order at 6:00pm, read the meeting participation and recording statement and declared a quorum with all members of the Select Board present. Public Announcements and Comments: None Select Board Announcements and Liaison Reports: Chair Whitney read the National Suicide Month Proclamation. Selectperson Hoffmann mentioned the 9/11 memorial service that both she and Selectperson Bingham attended, a beautiful tribute that was well organized. Selectperson Chatelain announced openings on the Zoning Board of Appeals, anyone interested should contact to him or Jon Idman the Town Planner. Town Administrator’s Report Mr. Lombardi provided the following updates: Covid Pandemic: o Updated boosters are now available to residents age 12+years who have been vaccinated or have been boosted more than two months ago. o Brewster local data, continue to see around 10 new positive case per week, our concern is the reliability of the data since so many home tests available. There will be an internal discussion with the Health Director about the continuing of sharing the local data. Drought o State Department of Energy and Environment Affairs moved Barnstable County to their critical drought status. o The Brewster Water Commissioners voted to further restrict outdoor watering restrictions. Effective on September 6th, residents can only hand water from 4am – 8am and 5pm -9pm. Use of irrigation systems or sprinklers are prohibited. Brewster is taking a coordinated approach with surrounding Towns that share our regional water supply, the Monomoy lens. o DCR put a prohibition in place on fires at Nickerson State Park. Free Cash o Certified by Department of Revenue at a little over $4.6M, another record high. Town of Brewster 2198 Main Street Brewster, MA 02631-1898 Phone: (508) 896-3701 Fax: (508) 896-8089 Select Board 09.12.2022 www.brewster-ma.gov Page 2 of 8 Office of: Select Board Town Administrator o Thanked the entire Finance team for their great work and Department Heads for managing their budgets, a 2% total turnback on expenditures. o Some of the major drives include all time high on local receipt revenues from traditional and short-term lodging, combined for over $1.2M. Deferred payments from lodging tax were unknown going into the last budget year, there was a significant bump last fall when they came due. Across the board, meals tax, excise tax and license/permit fees were all up above their historical benchmarks. Fire Department Academy o Brewster Fire Department is hosting a citizen’s fire academy, a 7-week program starting on October 17th, see website for more details. Wing Island Boardwalk o Town hosted a well-attended public forum on August 16th to provide background information and to share out early conceptual design. o There was a public comment period that closed just before Labor Day weekend, heard from over 150 residents. A project page on the website with a FAQ section. o At the meeting on the 26th, the design team will present on the conceptual design and to review the resident input. This is intended as a work session for the Board to provide feedback on the early design elements and talk about policy options and potential next steps. o Clarified that there is no Town Meeting article planned for this project for Town Special Town Meeting as we are very early on in the planning process State Primary o Thank you to the Clerk’s office, Town staff, and election workers for all their help on the state primary last Tuesday. o Selectperson Chaffee recognized Town Clerk, Colette Williams, who assisted the Town of Barnstable with their election. Consent Agenda a.Meeting Minutes: August 22, 2022 b.Appointment: Tyler Dow- Police Officer and Keeper of the Lockup; Jill Beardsley-Council on Aging Board c.One Day Liquor License Application: Eldredge Farm d.One Day Entertainment License: Mark Kielpinski e.Facility Use Application: Drummer Boy Park, By the Bay Shows f.Vote on T-Mobile’s Continued Use of Space on the Water Tank on Yankee Drive g.Vote on Eversource Easement and Subordination Agreement: Brewster Woods Selectperson Hoffmann moved to approve the Consent Agenda as written in the packet. Selectperson Bingham second. A roll call vote was taken. Selectperson Chatelain-yes, Selectperson Bingham-yes, Selectperson Chaffee-yes, Selectperson Hoffmann-yes, Chair Whitney-yes. The Board vote was 5-Yes, 0-No. Town of Brewster 2198 Main Street Brewster, MA 02631-1898 Phone: (508) 896-3701 Fax: (508) 896-8089 Select Board 09.12.2022 www.brewster-ma.gov Page 3 of 8 Office of: Select Board Town Administrator 6:15pm Public Hearing: Fiscal Year 2023 Tax Rate Classification Hearing, Discussion, and Vote- Deputy Assessor James Gallagher Selectperson Hoffmann moved to open the public hearing on the tax rate classification hearing. Selectperson Chatelain second. A roll call vote was taken. Selectperson Hoffmann-yes, Selectperson Bingham-yes, Selectperson Chaffee-yes, Selectperson Chatelain-yes, Chair Whitney-yes. The Board vote was 5-Yes, 0-No. Mr. Gallagher shared a PowerPoint presentation which included the following: Four options that would reallocate the top tax obligation among the five classes of property (residential, open space, commercial, industrial and personal property). FY2023 Maximum allowable levy: $40,937,327, an increase of around $3M over the FY22 maximum allowable levy. About $1.3M of the increase is debt from the Sea Camps Bay purchase. FY2023 Assessed Values; Total is just over $5.8B the breakdown by class is: o Residential = $5.5B, a 20% overall increase in value. Increase in value is mostly due to the strong real estate market. Reviewed all property sales that occurred in the previous calendar year (2021). o Commercial= $160,902,004, almost a 4% increase in value. o Industrial=$22,136,100, about a 62% increase in value. Increase is due to the solar projects at Captains Golf Course and private projects as well as a change in the laws that previous tax- exempt projects are now on the tax rolls. o Personal Property= $114,159,630, just over a 16% increase in value. FY2023 Estimated Tax Rate, based on estimated level and actual values o Residential class makes up 95% of the levy, Commercial about 3%, Industrial less than 1%, and Personal Property about 2%. o The single tax rate would be $6.99 per thousand, a decrease of $0.86 per thousand from FY22. FY2023 Tax Rate impact on median single family home tax bill. o Medium Single Family Home Value: $636,700 (an increase of 19.7%). o Estimated Tax Rate: $6.99 (decrease of 11%). o Estimated Median Single Family Tax Bill: $4,450.63 (increase of 6.6% or $274.33). Tax Levy Shifting Options, The Board of Assessor’s recommendation is to maintain a single tax rate amongst the property classes and not to adopt any of the discounts and exemptions. o Split Tax Rate- allows for a shift of the tax burden from the residential class of property to the commercial, industrial and personal property classes (CIP). This would have a much greater effect on commercial property than it would on residential property, since the percentage of value on commercial property is so small. The Board of Assessors recommends a residential factor of 1, no shift. o Open Space Discount- may reduce the amount of the tax levy paid by the open space class to no less than 75% of its full and fair cash share of the levy. Brewster does not currently classify any properties in the open space class; thus, this would not apply for the Town of Brewster. o Residential Exemption- allows for the shift of a portion of the residential tax burden from primary residences to second homeowners and primary residences with higher property values. This would actually increase the residential tax rate, the split in resident vs. Town of Brewster 2198 Main Street Brewster, MA 02631-1898 Phone: (508) 896-3701 Fax: (508) 896-8089 Select Board 09.12.2022 www.brewster-ma.gov Page 4 of 8 Office of: Select Board Town Administrator nonresident properties in Brewster is currently at 52% resident and 48% nonresident. The Board of Assessors recommends not to grant a residential exemption. Mr. Gallagher provided details on the residential exemption calculation to support the Board’s recommendation. o Small Commercial Exemption- creates a shift that reduces taxes paid by owners of properties occupied by small businesses and shifts them to larger commercial and industrial taxpayers. Adopting a small commercial exemption increases the commercial and industrial tax rates. Selectperson Hoffmann moved to continue to use a Residential Factor of 1; not to grant an Open Space Discount; not to grant a Residential Exemption; not to grant a Small Business Exemption. Selectperson Chaffee second. A roll call vote was taken. Selectperson Hoffmann-yes, Selectperson Bingham-yes, Selectperson Chatelain-yes, Selectperson Chaffee-yes, Chair Whitney-yes. The Board vote was 5-Yes, 0-No. Selectperson Hoffmann moved to close the public hearing. Selectperson Bingham second. A roll call vote was taken. Selectperson Chaffee-yes, Selectperson Chatelain-yes, Selectperson Bingham-yes, Selectperson Hoffmann-yes, Chair Whitney-yes. The Board vote was 5-Yes, 0-No. Presentation on HAC-APCC Grow Smart Cape Cod Mapping Project and Discussion of Brewster Findings- Alisa Magnotta, Housing Assistance Corporation, and Don Keeran, Association to Preserve Cape Cod Ms. Magnotta acknowledged the Town for being leaders in the region on adding affordable housing inventory. She then reviewed the PowerPoint from the packet, information included: The process that HAC and APCC used to collaborate efforts in creating Grow Smart Cape Cod. Reviewed the criteria used to determine the environmental protection areas. Housing criteria used was wastewater infrastructure, existing activity/ development patterns, and future development potential. Priority areas for affordable year-round housing was separated into three categories, moderate priority, high priority and potential for housing if municipal sewer is constructed. High level recommendations include: o Changing zoning in the areas where you can allow density that makes sense with the environmental concerns and development patterns. o Utilizing and leveraging resources to acquire land to use for housing. o Utilize funding and resources for sewer planning. Mr. Keernan added that in deciding the layers for natural resources they used the Cape Cod Commission’s Regional Policy Plan and adopted the criteria that went into that definition of what a natural area is. The advisory committee utilized the expertise of Brewster’s former planner Ryan Bennet and Hal Minis. Throughout the process the advisory committee met with several other staff members in town. The interactive map can be found at growsmartcapecod.org, one of the goals of the map, from a regional perspective is to get everyone on the same page, to look at individual towns in a holistic manner to reduce the competitive nature between the natural resources, the conservation community and the housing Town of Brewster 2198 Main Street Brewster, MA 02631-1898 Phone: (508) 896-3701 Fax: (508) 896-8089 Select Board 09.12.2022 www.brewster-ma.gov Page 5 of 8 Office of: Select Board Town Administrator community and look at it in a cooperative manner to see where it is most appropriate to concentrate limited funds on open space and natural resource protection and housing investments. The Select Board made comments and asked questions about the presentation regarding municipal sewer. Ms. Kalinick noted that areas that are noted as high priority in Brewster, are along 6A which happens to be the most expensive areas, this is not accounted for in the mapping, but something that needs to be considered. Review and Vote on Voluntary Recognition Agreement with Brewster Public Safety Dispatchers Association, MassCOP Mr. Lombardi reviewed that in July MassCOP contacted the Town with their intent to form a new union for public safety dispatchers at the Police department. The Town followed the formal process, the Board approved notice of voluntary recognition last month. Notice was posted for a 20-day period, and the comment period ended at the end of August. The police dispatchers are looking to enter into a voluntary recognition agreement with the Town. This currently impacts four Town employees, and the Town will negotiate a new contract with this bargaining unit. Selectperson Hoffmann moved to approve the voluntary recognition agreement with Brewster public safety dispatchers’ association, MassCOP. Selectperson Bingham second. A roll call vote was taken. Selectperson Chaffee-yes, Selectperson Chatelain-yes, Selectperson Bingham-yes, Selectperson Hoffmann-yes, Chair Whitney-yes. The Board vote was 5-Yes, 0-No. Vote to Open Fall 2022 Special Town Meeting Warrant & Review Draft Articles Selectperson Hoffmann moved to open the Fall 2022 Special Town Meeting warrant. Selectperson Bingham second. A roll call vote was taken. Selectperson Chatelain-yes, Selectperson Chaffee-yes, Selectperson Bingham-yes, Selectperson Hoffmann-yes, Chair Whitney-yes. The Board vote was 5-Yes, 0-No. Mr. Lombardi reviewed and summarized the sixteen draft articles, in no particular order: 1.Outstanding Obligations (unpaid bills) 2.Standard Community Preservation Act article a.Only one pending application, Brewster Historical Society 3.Conservation Restriction Acquisition- 0 Holly Ave Rear (Huckleberry Hill / Burke Property) a.Looking partnering with Brewster Conservation Trust on the 5 acres. b.There is a pending State land grant application for $130,000 of the $250,000 costs. 4.Town Code Amendment to Community Preservation Committee bylaw a.Article that was proposed at Annual Town Meeting, seeking to amend the current CPC bylaw to adopt the statutory CPC allocation formula. 5.Capital and Special Project Expenditures a.Currently working on expected list of capital project requests (to be discussed on Oct 3rd) 6.Town Code Amendment to Limits of Debate a.From currently 3 minutes to 1.5 minutes Town of Brewster 2198 Main Street Brewster, MA 02631-1898 Phone: (508) 896-3701 Fax: (508) 896-8089 Select Board 09.12.2022 www.brewster-ma.gov Page 6 of 8 Office of: Select Board Town Administrator 7.Town Code Amendment to Quorum Requirement(s) 8.New General Bylaw regarding Reconsideration 9.Town Code Amendment to Citizens Petitions Deadline for Special Town Meeting a.There is a specific deadline for citizen petitions to be submitted for inclusion on Annual Town Meeting warrant, but not the Special Town Meeting warrant, want to impose the same 45- day deadline for the Special Town Meeting. 10.Local Comprehensive Plan 11.Millstone Road Temporary Easements a.Necessary for the Millstone Road improvement project, currently working through the re- design process. Permanent easements will not be required on private property. 12.Vesper Pond Drive Betterments 13.Ridgewood Drive Betterments 14.Creation of Sea Camps Pool Revolving Fund, including initial appropriation a.Looking into the possibility of opening the pool to residents for next summer. 15.Collective Bargaining Agreement- New Police Dispatchers Union 16.Appropriations from Overlay to Fund Assessing Software ($15,000-$20,000) The Board voted last month to set the deadline for citizens petitions as September 28th. The warrant is expected to be closed and go to print on October 17th. Residents Hal Minis and Pat Hughes of Tubman Road expressed their concern for the CPA bylaw amendment article and the form in which it is currently drafted. There is no objection to the revisions proposed, or the specific allocation guidelines, as they believe it is appropriate to change the allocation formula and the represent our communities’ priorities. The concern is that the proposed article does not contain language on the allocation process, they believe the voters should be able to make the decision about how the funds are allocated. Discuss Town Administrator Performance Evaluation Results and Vote on FY23 Merit Increase Susan Broderick joined the meeting and provided background information on the evaluation process. The evaluation form includes eight categories of evaluation criteria. Each category contains statements to describe a behavior standard. Each category is rated on a scale from 1-5 (1=unsatisfactory, 2= needs improvement, 3= satisfactory, 4= above average, 5= outstanding). For the Town Administrator, each Select Board member was asked to complete the form for this past fiscal year July 1, 2021- June 30, 2022. Each member met with the Town Administrator to review and discuss individual evaluations. Human Resources then compiled the results into one review, the ratings are the average score for each category and all comments are included. Mrs. Broderick asked the Board to use the aggregate review to determine the merit increase for the Town Administrator. Adding that the merit increase will be retro to July 1, 2022. Mrs. Broderick advised that a 2% increase was used during the budget process and is what other contracted employees received for a merit review. Town of Brewster 2198 Main Street Brewster, MA 02631-1898 Phone: (508) 896-3701 Fax: (508) 896-8089 Select Board 09.12.2022 www.brewster-ma.gov Page 7 of 8 Office of: Select Board Town Administrator Selectperson Chaffee commented what an exceptional Town Administrator the Town has in Mr. Lombardi and this was a good experience to pause and look at his performance. Selectperson Chaffee expressed that the community benefits from the Town Administrator’s leadership. The one challenge was to identify weaknesses, one thing that was agreed on was for the Town Administrator to make time for his own professional growth and education. Selectperson Chaffee stated that the Town is fortunate to have leadership like we do and supports a 2% merit increase. Selectperson Hoffmann moved to approve a 2% merit increase for the Town Administrator. Selectperson Bingham second. A roll call vote was taken. Selectperson Hoffmann-yes, Selectperson Bingham-yes, Selectperson Chatelain-yes, Selectperson Chaffee-yes, Chair Whitney-yes. The Board vote was 5-Yes, 0-No. Identify Consensus Priority FY23 Goals for Town Administrator Susan Broderick noted as part of the review process each Select Board member was asked to identify three goals for the Town Administrator for this fiscal year. Human Resources compiled the results into nine categories, the Select Board then discussed and agreed on the following five goals for the Town Administrator. 1.Cape Cod Sea Camps-guide and supervisor the Bay property planning committee and the Pond Property Planning Committee actives including interim public use and access for both properties throughout fiscal year 2023. 2.Water Quality Goals – convene a water quality planning task force and develop plan and timeline for advancing integrated water quality initiatives, including adapting to DEP’s proposed changes to Title V regulations. 3.Housing Goal- begin implementing priority strategies of the updated Housing Production Plan. 4.Parks & Recreation Department Category – evaluate need for and structure of a new Parks & Recreation Department to manage Drummer Boy Park, the former Sea Camps, the Dog Park, and current recreation programs including long range planning for new multigenerational programs. 5.Oversee the implementation of the new Town website by November 1, 2022 and identify enhancements to current communication model. (Timeline will be determined). Discuss and Vote on Schedule to Implement New Remote Participation Policy for Town Committees In June the Board voted to adopt an updated remote participation policy, this was to take affect when the expanded open meeting law provisions ended. All boards and committees have the option to meet in person, hybrid format or virtual, public participation is not allowed at this time. There is an option to have public forums with an in-person component. Selectperson Chaffee moved to defer identification of the implementation date of the remote participation policy until a future meeting. Selectperson Bingham second. A roll call vote was taken. Selectperson Bingham-yes, Selectperson Chaffee-yes, Selectperson Chatelain-yes, Selectperson Hoffmann-yes, Chair Whitney-yes. The Board vote was 5-Yes, 0-No. Town of Brewster 2198 Main Street Brewster, MA 02631-1898 Phone: (508) 896-3701 Fax: (508) 896-8089 Select Board 09.12.2022 www.brewster-ma.gov Page 8 of 8 Office of: Select Board Town Administrator For Your Information: None Matters Not Reasonably Anticipated by the Chair: None Questions from the Media: None Next Meetings: September 26, October 3, October 17, November 7, and November 14, 2022 Adjournment Selectperson Hoffmann moved to adjourn at 8:07. Selectperson Bingham second. A roll call vote was taken. Selectperson Chaffee-yes, Selectperson Chatelain-yes, Selectperson Bingham-yes, Selectperson Hoffmann- yes, Chair Whitney-yes. The Board vote was 5-Yes, 0-No. Respectfully submitted by Erika Mawn, Executive Assistant Approved: __________________ Signed: _________________________________________ Date Selectperson Hoffmann, Clerk of the Select Board Accompanying Documents in Packet: Agenda, Proclamation, TA Report documents, Consent agenda items, FY23 Tax Rate Hearing, HAC- APCC Presentation, Voluntary Recognition Agreement, Fall 2023 Warrant Information, Town Administrator Performance Evaluation Results, Consensus priority FY23 Goals for Town Administrator, New Remote Participation Policy information, FYIs. FINAL Select Bd Appt Policy; version Oct. 28 Appendix B Town of Brewster SELECT BOARD COMMITTEE APPOINTMENT APPLICATION APPLICANT DIRECTIONS: Thank you for your interest in serving Brewster. The Town aims to match applicants with committee service best aligned to your skills and interests as well as the committee’s needs. The Town may consider the information in this application, any supplemental information, and any other publicly available information. An appointment to any committee, board or commission is at the discretion of the Select Board. Please complete this form online, or on paper, and submit a résumé if desired to Erika Mawn, Town Administrator’s Executive Assistant: o Email: EMawn@Brewster-MA.gov o Mail: Erika Mawn, 2198 Main St., Brewster, MA 02631, or o In person: Town Administrator’s Office or drop-box outside Town Hall. After your application materials are received, you’ll be contacted regarding next steps. Vacancies will be filled by applicants deemed best qualified to serve in a particular capacity, which discretion lies solely with the appointing authority. Submitting this form does not guarantee appointment. 1. Applicant name: 2. Address: 3. Phone Numbers: Home: Cell: 4. Email: 5. This is an application for: Full member status Alternate status 6. Are you a full-time Brewster resident? Yes No 7. Years you’ve lived in Brewster: 8. Are you registered to vote in Brewster? Yes No 9. Committees you are interested in serving on in order of preference: a. b. c. NOTE: You may attach a résumé or CV instead of completing items 10-14. FINAL Select Bd Appt Policy; version Oct. 28 10. EDUCATION. List schools attended, degrees/diplomas/certificates received, and date of completion. Name of School Degree/Diplomas Certificates Date of Completion 11. OCCUPATION: ______________________________________________________ Active Retired Not currently working 12. EMPLOYMENT EXPERIENCE. List employers, job titles and dates of employment for at least previous 3 years. Name of Employer Job Title Dates of Employment 13. GOVERNMENT POSITIONS. List any Town of Brewster or other government volunteer, elected, or appointed positions you now hold or have held. 14. COMMUNITY ACTIVITIES. List all civic, non-profit, or other organizations that you belong to or have belonged to in the previous 5 years: a. Organizations and dates: 15. GOALS: Please explain why you’d like to serve on a particular committee. 16. EXPERIENCE & SKILLS: Please list any experience, achievements, skills, or interests you have that would assist you to serve effectively on the committee you wish to serve on. 17. TOWN EMPLOYMENT: Are you or any member of your immediate family employed by or receiving financial consideration from the Town of Brewster? Yes No 18. CONFLICTS OF INTEREST. Do any of your activities or relationships present the possibility or probability of a conflict of interest if you are appointed?(Does not automatically disqualify but may need to be disclosed) Yes No 19. LOCAL REFERENCES: Please provide the names and contact information for references (Brewster residents preferred): 20. ADDITIONAL INFORMATION. Please add any additional information you’d like. a. Name: Addre Phone Email: Relationship to you: b. Name: Addre Phon Email Relationship to you: FINAL Select Bd Appt Policy; version Oct. 28 20. SIGNATURE. By signing below, you state that you understand and agree. My completion of this form does not guarantee my appointment and my application will be kept on file for two (2) years. If appointed to a position, I will be considered a Municipal Employee under MGL Ch. 268A and will be subject to: Massachusetts Conflict of Interest Law, MGL Ch. 268A; Massachusetts Financial Disclosure Law, MGL Ch. 268B; Massachusetts Open Meeting Law, MGL Ch. 30A, Sections 18-25, and the implementing regulations, 940 CMR 29.00; Massachusetts Public Records Law, MGL Ch. 66, and the implementing regulations, 950 CMR 32.00; Massachusetts Campaign Finance Law, MGL Ch. 55; and Brewster Charter, when in force, and Town bylaws, and all other applicable federal, state, and local laws or regulations. If appointed, I must be sworn in by the Town Clerk before serving, and I will complete State Conflict of Interest training after appointment, as well as any other certifications required by law. When submitted, I understand that this form becomes a public document. Signature: Date: Patricia Semple EXPERIENCE September 2016 to present Responsible for the immediate personal needs of two adult family members and caregiver to others. Co-Founder of Senate Circle (www.senatecircle.org), an all-volunteer group that supports candidacies of selected individuals running for US Senate. Volunteer with Wellfleet Bay Wildlife Sanctuary. Active member of Rosemary Lane & Tracy Lane neighborhood association. Active member of Cape Cod Covenant Church. Member/supporter of Cape Cod Natural History Museum, Brewster Ladies Library, NAMI Massachusetts, WCAI public radio, Mass Audubon, and various local theatrical and musical venues. October 2008 to June 2016: Director of Library Services, Bullis School, Potomac, MD 20854. Upper School: Taught information literacy and academic research skills to all grades in all subject areas. Special focus on 10th and 11th grade projects for National History Day, 12th grade English final paper, and senior capstone projects in Signature Programs (STEM, Humanities & Global Studies, etc.). Promoted reading through book talks and online finding aids, met with students individually as needed, used chat services to meet their needs when school not in session. Maintained extensive website for student use. Supervised and scheduled faculty use of the library space and the students in it. Attended faculty meetings and served on various committees as needed. Took advantage of all available professional development activities. Middle School: Taught information literacy and academic research skills to all grades in all subject areas. Special focus on 7th grade project in Ancient History classes and all grades for sustained silent reading program. Maintained webpages as needed to support student research efforts. Awarded a Parent Association grant that allowed purchase of Kindles and e-books for student borrowing. Technology: Prior to hiring of Help Desk staff person, served as de facto technical support to students using PCs and Macs. Responsible for entire library budget of $40,000 and oversight of Lower & Middle School Librarian. November 2006 to 2008: Electronic Resources Librarian, Rockville Campus Library, Montgomery College, 51 Mannakee Street, Rockville, MD 20850. Electronic Resources: Assist with developing the College’s electronic resources by helping to identify, test, and recommend e-resources for purchase; offer e-resource training to campus librarians and library staff. 2 Reference: Assist students and faculty in access and use of print and online resources, both at the traditional reference desk and through AskUsNow, Maryland’s 24/7 IM library reference service. Instruction: Teach 20-30 classes per year, create and maintain online course pages for most classes, meet with students outside of class. Acquisitions: Reference, English Literature, Foreign Literature, Psychology, Education, Political Science, Economics. Budget for FY2009 was $25K. Committees: Electronic Resources, Web Design, Behavioral Mapping, and various search committees. Personal Initiatives: Overseeing the conversion of the library’s static webpages to a Web2.0 format (LibGuides). Awards: Staff Outstanding Service Award 2008; OIT Employee of the Year Finalist in 2007, 2005, 2003; Make It Happen! Grant Award in 2006; Office of Instruction Technology (OIT) Customer Care Finalist in 2006; College Merit Award in 2004. January 2002 to November 2006: Instruction Librarian, Rockville Campus Library, Montgomery College, 51 Mannakee Street, Rockville, MD 20850. Reference: Assist students and faculty in access and use of print and online resources, both at the traditional reference desk and through AskUsNow, Maryland’s 24/7 IM library reference service. Instruction: Schedule classes, assign librarians, maintain statistics, write and edit handouts, provide classroom support, conduct workshops for faculty, develop outreach programs, design instructional material, support other librarians. As instructor, teach 100-120 classes a year, create and maintain online course pages for most classes, create and cultivate collection of suitable websites for student research, meet with students outside of class. Acquisitions: English & Foreign Literature, Psychology, Education, Political Science, Economics. Annual budget ranges from $12-18K. Committees: College-wide Middle States Self-Study Work Group; Library committees include Voyager OPAC, Information Literacy, Electronic Resources (temporarily), Web Usability, Publications, and various search committees. General library responsibilities: Review databases for purchase, weed collection, ancillary duties. Personal Initiatives: Highlights include converting text-based workbook for EN101 students to a series of video tutorials using Camtasia software; spearheading major effort to customize interface and usability of library’s online catalog (Voyager); creating 90+ webpages for use of colleagues and students; designing and conducting survey of English faculty regarding information literacy; designing and implementing survey of instruction librarians at 20 transfer institutions; creating 109-page website for student research needs; piloting successful program of online course pages. College-wide Activities: Active in College’s Mentoring Program; lead workshops for CTL, IT, and on Professional Days; deliver presentations to administration; contribute to work of College’s nationally acclaimed Paul Peck Institute Jeffersonian Café; volunteer at College functions, including Commencements, as needed. 3 March 2001 to July 2001: Broadcast Librarian, National Public Radio (NPR), 635 Massachusetts Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20036. Temporary position. Cataloged shows such as All Things Considered and Fresh Air and helped maintain audio library of CD-ROMs and reel-to-reel tapes. July 2000 to January 2001: Technical Linguist, AnswerLogic, 1111 19th Street, NW, Suite 600, Washington, DC, 20036. Built online lexicon with team of linguists for privately-held technology company; software interface relied on natural language processing technologies to generate complete answers to users’ questions. Specialized in information technology and telecommunications terminology. Position eliminated as result of downsizing. September 1998 to June 2000: Digital Librarian, The Maryland Electronic Community (MELC) of the Baltimore Electronic Community Project (BLC), 4120G Hornbake South, The University of Maryland, College Park, MD 20742. Graduate assistantship. Responsible for acquiring, indexing, and cataloguing material (especially video) for digital library used by teachers to construct online lessons. Conducted workshops, contributed to design of cataloging interface, and presented paper at national conference. August 1995 to September 1998: Assistant Editor, MultiMedia Schools, 2809 Brandywine Street, NW, Washington, DC 20008. Wrote the “TitleWatch” column; selected software for review; assigned reviewers; edited text; proofread feature articles; reviewed galley proofs for feature stories. Work appeared in each issue of the printed publication and online at <www.infotoday.com/MMSchools>. August 1991 to November 1995: English Composition Assistant, Quince Orchard High School, 15800 Quince Orchard Road, Gaithersburg, MD 20878. Taught classes on the research process; shared responsibility of managing computer lab; evaluated student compositions for syntax, usage, and content. Coach of the school’s It’s Academic! Team and participant in school’s mentoring program. December 1982 to August 1991: Stayed at home with my children. Participated in countless volunteer efforts in local school system, neighborhood, and community. Served on association boards, presented testimony, produced directories and newsletters, coordinated large events. January 1981 to December 1982: Research Assistant, American Institutes for Research, 1055 Thomas Jefferson Street, Washington, DC 20007. Collected and analyzed data for Youth Advocacy Project; wrote proposals; listed as an author on two different research reports. September 1979 to January 1981: Staff Assistant, Office of the Vice President, The White House, Washington, DC. Assigned to Vice President Mondale’s Scheduling Office. Fielded inquiries from the public; coordinated staff communications when the VP was traveling; wrote responses to constituent mail in the areas of scheduling, education, veterans issues, and health. 4 EDUCATION Master of Library Science (MLS) in May 2000 from the College of Information Studies, The University of Maryland, College Park, MD 20742. Graduated first in class and was faculty choice for Student Speaker at Commencement in May 2000. Electives: Classification Theory / Database Design / Indexing Languages and Thesauri Construction / Multimedia Information Services / Information Retrieval on the Internet / Field Study at National Public Radio / Information Technology Policy / Regular member of not-for- credit Digital Library Reading Group BA with Honors in Political Science in 1979 from Barnard College (Columbia University), 2001 Broadway, New York City, NY 10027. Select Professional Development Opportunities American Library Association Annual Conference (Las Vegas, summer 2013) Ex Libris Technical Seminar & Conference (Long Beach CA, July 2008) American Library Association Annual Conference (Anaheim CA, June 2008) Computers In Libraries Conference (Washington DC, April 2008) Endeavour EndUser2007 Conference (Chicago, Spring 2007) AskUsNow Training: Maryland’s 24/7 IM Reference Service (July 2006) Endeavour EndUser2006 Conference (Chicago, Spring 2006) CA273 Advanced Web Site Development (3.0 credit course, Spring 2005) CAPCON training entitled “Delivering Training with Confidence” (Spring 2005) ALA/LAMA Research Institute “Incorporating Outcomes into Library Measurement and Assessment” (Fall 2005) OCLC/CAPCON “Writing for the Web” (Fall 2005) Congress of Library Directors, “Assessing Information Literacy” (Spring 2005) “Accessible Web Pages: Designing Web Pages for Users With Special Needs (Fall 2004) CA272 Web Site Development with XHTML (3.0 credit course, Summer 2004) “Web Search University” Conference, Washington, DC (Fall 2003) PUBLICATIONS Semple, Patricia. “It’s Never to Late to Flip!” Internet@Schools vol. 20, no. 1. Jan./Feb. 2013. Also online at <http://www.internetatschools.com/Archives/3662-Jan-Feb-2013.htm>. Semple, Patricia. “Book Review: Research Within the Disciplines: Foundations for Reference and Library Instruction. By Keerean, Peggy, et al.” Public Services Quarterly. Semple, Patricia. “Book Review: Theories of Information Behavior, Ed. Karen E. Fisher” Public Services Quarterly 2:4 (2006): 87-88. EN101 Library Skills Workbook. Montgomery College, Rockville, MD. 2002-2006 5 Semple, P., B. Allen, and A. Rose. “Developing An Educational Multimedia Digital Library: Content Preparation, Indexing, And Usage.” Presented at EdMedia Conference 2000 in Montreal, Canada, on June 30, 2000. <www.aace.org/conf/edmedia/> Semple, Patricia P. “TitleWatch” Columns. MultiMedia Schools. Issues from January 1996 to September 1998. <www.infotoday.com/MMSchools/MMStocs/MMStitletoc.html> Semple, Patricia. “Product Review: Grammar for the Real World.” MultiMedia Schools, vol. 6, no. 2 (March /April 1999). pp. 62-63. <www.infotoday.com/MMSchools/MMStocs/mar99toc.htm> Semple, Patricia. “Product Review: Make a Masterpiece.” MultiMedia Schools, vol. 6, no. 1 (January/February 1999). <www.infotoday.com/MMSchools/MMStocs/jan99toc.htm> Cohen, Larry J., Patricia P. Semple, and Robert E. Crew, Jr. “Assigned Counsel Versus Public Defender Systems in Virginia: A Comparison of Relative Benefits.” The Defense Counsel. Ed William F. McDonald. Beverly Hills, CA: SAGE Publications, 1983. AWARDS & PROFESSIONAL Bullis Parent Association Grant, 2010 Montgomery College Staff Outstanding Service Award, 2008 OIT Employee of the Year Finalist, 2007 Make It Happen! Innovation Grant Recipient, Montgomery College, 2006 OIT Customer Care Award Finalist, Montgomery College, 2006 OIT Employee of the Year Finalist, Montgomery College, 2005 Merit Award, Montgomery College, 2004 OIT Customer Care Award, Montgomery College, 2003 OIT Employee of the Year Nomination, Montgomery College, 2003 Beta Phi Mu, National Honor Society for Librarians, 2000 to 2016 American Library Association, 2008 to 2015 Maryland Library Association, 2004 to 2006 Election Judge, Montgomery County Board of Elections, 2004 to 2018 National Scrabble Association, Intermediate Rank, 1994-1996 Chevy Chase Scrabble Club, member 2000-2015 National Alliance for Mental Illness, Certified Teacher of Family-To-Family classes, 2014 to 2017 last updated on 2022 September 05 FINAL Select Bd Appt Policy; version Oct. 28 Appendix C SELECT BOARD COMMITTEE APPLICATION SCREENING FORM Applicant Name Requested Committee 1. TOWN CLERK REVIEW a. Applicant is a registered Brewster voter: Yes No b. Date confirmed 2. SELECT BOARD LIAISON RECOMMENDATION TO SELECT BOARD a. Select Board Liaison Applicant Interview: i. Interviewer name (Select Board Liaison): ii. Interview date: b. Select Board Liaison Consultation with Committee Chair: iii. Committee Chair name: iv. Consultation date: v. Did Committee Chair also interview applicant? Yes No c. Was at least 1 Brewster reference contacted: Yes No N/A d. Select Board Liaison Recommendation: i. Recommend appointment. ii. Recommend appointment to other committee that is a better fit for applicant qualifications. iii. Recommend holding application for future opening. iv. Not recommended. 3. SELECT BOARD ACTION a. At a Select Board meeting held , the Applicant was appointed to for a term ending year term. 4. NOTIFICATION OF APPOINTEE AND TOWN CLERK a. Date notification of appointment sent to appointee and Town Clerk: The Commonwealth of Massachusetts Town of Brewster To Patricia Semple We, the Selectmen of Brewster by virtue of the authority in us vested by the laws of the Commonwealth, do hereby appoint you to the Recycling Commission for a 3-year term, expiring June 30, 2025 Given at Brewster this 26th day of September 2022 Recorded A.D. Attest:Town Clerk Habitat for Humanity of Cape Cod 411 Main Street Suite 6 • Yarmouth Port, MA 02675 • 508-362-3559 x24 www.habitatcapecod.org land@habitatcapecod.org David Whitney, Chair Brewster Select Board Town of Brewster 2198 Main Street Brewster, MA 02631 September 12, 2022 RE: Request for waiver of permitting fees for 26 Red Top Road Community Housing Project Dear Mr. Whitney, On behalf of Habitat for Humanity of Cape Cod, I am here requesting the Select Board’s consideration of a waiver of permitting fees for our community housing project at 26 Red Top Road. The two-home project was approved by Brewster ZBA on October 12, 2021, with the 40B Comprehensive Permit recorded at the Barnstable County Registry of Deeds in BK 34849 PG 19. As we look to soon start infrastructure on this project, we appreciate your consideration of any eligible fee waivers that are in keeping with Brewster Town policy. The following waiver request was included in our ZBA application of August 3, 2021: “Waivers are requested from all applicable fees. Fee Waivers – Under MGL Chapter 40B, the Zoning Board has the authority to grant fee waivers. Habitat typically requests waivers from local fees such as Building Department, Health Department and Fire Department. Habitat respectfully requests the Zoning Board of Appeals waive all local fee payments to the Town of Brewster. In the alternative, at the Board’s preference and request, Habitat would approach the Selectmen to approve these waivers.” Thank you for your ongoing partnership with Habitat for Humanity of Cape Cod. We are looking forward to creating and offering these Affordable ownership homes, including a Veteran preference opportunity for one home. Please feel free to reach out with any questions. Most sincerely yours, Beth Hardy Wade Director of Land Acquisition & Project Development cc by email: Jill Scalise & Donna Kalinick Town of Brewster 2198 Main Street Brewster, MA 02631-1898 Phone: (508) 896-3701 Fax: (508) 896-8089 September 26, 2022 David Lager 2 Centennial Drive – Suite 4D Peabody, MA 01960 RE: Access to Breakwater Beach for Sand Nourishment, SumCo Eco-Contracting, LLC Dear Mr. Lager; Permission to utilize the Town’s property at Breakwater Beach for the purpose of sand nourishment at 268 Breakwater Road has been granted to SumCo Eco-Contracting, LLC of Peabody. This approval is contingent upon: 1.Access from Breakwater Beach shall be granted beginning at sunrise on Monday, October 17, 2022 to sunset, Friday, October 21, 2022 for supplying approximately 40 cubic yards of sand to the property. Access shall be allowed for one tracked skid steer. 2.The above dates are not subject to change. No extensions will be granted. 3.Permission extends to allow the above listed equipment, including the 40 cubic yards of sand, to be stored on the Town’s property. Equipment must be stored behind sawhorses to discourage unauthorized access or vandalism, and SumCo Eco-Contracting, LLC must ensure the protection of the pavement from the vehicle tracks. The Town warrants no protection or safety for unsupervised equipment or materials stored on Town property. The Town representative may require modifications relating to project activities/staging, including necessary steps to protect the landing during use. If so, said conditions will be provided at the time of the required, pre-work on-site meeting. 4.You are required to maintain access for shell fishermen/pick-up trucks to service their shellfish grants at Breakwater Beach, as well as residents. 5.Prior to the use of the landing, a minimum six inch (6”) sand cover (exact depth to be determined at the site visit) must be spread over the asphalt pavement in order to protect the integrity of the asphalt. The sand cover, as well as the sand cover to be utilized for beach re-nourishment or to bury any fiber rolls or other permitted sub- surface stabilizing materials, shall be “Mason Grade” sand, compatible in color and texture to that material which naturally exists on the beach. No work is to be done within thirty-six inches (36”) of the edge of any catch basins, drains or groins. Office of: Select Board Town Administrator 6.Work shall be coordinated to take place during low tides in order to prevent vehicular equipment traffic over the drainage structures, pipes, groins and/or private property. 7.The contractor shall provide a certificate of insurance that shall certify valid liability insurance coverage in the minimum amount of $1,000,000 throughout the duration of the use of the landing. (received) 8.The contractor shall provide a $20,000 bank check or bond, to be held by the Town as financial assurance of performance and to cover the potential cost of reparations of any damage to the Town’s property. (received) 9.The contractor shall be required to take and provide photographs, taken prior to the start of any construction work, showing the pre-construction conditions of the parking and landing area and the public beach. These photos shall be submitted to the Conservation Department and the Selectmen’s Office. 10.All excess sand cover shall be cleared from the landing upon completion of the work and utilized to restore base-line beach profiles, if doing so would be consistent with the Order of Conditions issued by the Conservation Commission in relation to this project. 11.The Town Administrator’s office (in addition to the Conservation Commission Office and DPW) shall be notified when “on-site” phase meetings are scheduled. Advance notice of a minimum of 24 hours shall be provided to the Selectmen/Town Administrator’s Office, the Conservation Commission and the DPW prior to staging and commencement of work. At least one representative from the Town should meet the contractor on-site, prior to commencement to ensure adequate coordination (This meeting occurred on 9/16/2022). Please call me at 508-896-3701, x 1129, if you have any questions or need to relay any important information about this project. Sincerely, Conor Kenny Conor Kenny Project Manager Cc: Chris Miller, Director of Natural Resources Andrea Sideris, Conservation Department Assistant Griffin Ryder, DPW Superintendent Jimmy Jones, DPW Foreman TOWN OF BREWSTER 1657 MAIN STREET BREWSTER,MA 02631 PHONE:(508)896-4546 FAX:(508)896-8089 CONSERVATION@BREWSTER-MA.GOV OFFICE OF CONSERVATION COMMISSION Town Landing and Public Beach Access Request Form Complete each section below and submit this Request Form to the Office of the Conservation Commission a minimum of 21 days prior to the requested start-date. Access is granted on a first come basis, and only one contractor is permitted the use of any one town landing at any given time. Check boxes are for office use. ________________________________________________________________________________ Town Landing and Public Beach Access Information Town Landing and Beach where access is requested:__Breakwater Proposed start and finish dates: October 17 – October 21, 2022 Estimated duration of work: 5 days Attach a description of proposed work to include vehicles, equipment, and/or materials to be stored on public property overnight. Vehicle registration numbers for any equipment must also be provided. ________________________________________________________________________________ Contractor Information Name of contractor(s) performing work: Sumco Eco-Contracting, LLC Phone number for contractor(s): office 978-744-1515 Cell (Dave Lager) 781-789-2382 Email for contractor(s): dlager@sumcoeco.com (Dave Lager) Address of contractor(s): 2 Centennial Drive, Peabody, MA 01960 ________________________________________________________________________________ Property Information Address of property where work is to be performed: 268 Breakwater, Brewster Property owner(s): James Lieb Phone number of owner(s):_____________________________________________________ Email of owner(s): jimlieb@outlook.com Conservation Permit Number for work: SE 9-1582 Submit Conservation performance bond if applicable under the Orders of Conditions Submit sieve analysis and source information for nourishment sand Submit sieve analysis for existing sand on the property Submit written work notice and “before” photos of the project site ________________________________________________________________________________ TOWN OF BREWSTER 1657 MAIN STREET BREWSTER,MA 02631 PHONE:(508)896-4546 FAX:(508)896-8089 CONSERVATION@BREWSTER-MA.GOV OFFICE OF CONSERVATION COMMISSION Attachments: *Your application will not be considered complete until all of the below are submitted.* Site map for the property where work is to be performed (to include the access route) Copy of abutter’s list and notification letter Certificate of Insurance Town Landing Use Fee of $50 (to be submitted to Town Administration Office) Performance Bond/Bank Check for Use of Town Landing (minimum $10,000) o Funds will be returned upon successful completion of the work o To be submitted to Town Administration Office Description of proposed work (see Town Landing and Public Beach Access Information) ________________________________________________________________________________ August 24, 2022 Additional Information Town of Brewster, Town Land and Public Beach Access Request Form SE9-1582 (268 Breakwater Landing Description of Proposed Work, Vehicles, Equipment and Materials Work consists of beach nourishment using compatible beach sand supplied by Cape Sand and Gravel, Brewster. The equipment to be used on the beach will a tracked skid steer. Sand will be delivered to Breakwater Landing using a tri-axle truck (about 20 tons/load). Sand cover will be placed over the bituminous asphalt where the skid steer will be unloaded from the trailer. If pedestrian walking mats are in place leading from the parking area to the beach, Sumco will place mats over the Brewster mats to protect the in-place mats. We anticipate the work to take 2-3 days during which the skid steer will be stored in the parking area overnight. All sand will be placed during the day work hours, no sand will be left on the parking area. No other equipment will be stored on the site during night time hours. Conservation Performance Bond – this bond does not appear to be required Sieve Analysis – sand will be supplied from Cape Sand and Gravel, Brewster. I believe a sieve analysis is on file with the Commission. In the past Cape Sand and Gravel material has been considered compatible sand. Work Notice – see attached Pre-construction Photos – photos will be taken at preconstruction meeting Site Map and Route of Travel – see attached Abutter List and Notification Letter – None (access just crosses Town of Brewster property) Sumco Certificate of Insurance – COI naming the Town of Brewster as the Certificate Holder and Additionally Insured has been requested from our insurance agency and will be provided in the next day or two Street Use Bond – Bond has been requested from our surety and will be provided in the next day or two Town of Brewster 2198 Main Street Brewster, MA 02631-1898 Phone: (508) 896-3701 Fax: (508) 896-8089 NUMBER 2021-ODL – 46 2022-ODL-#45 FEE $35.00 Town of Brewster Local Licensing Authority This is to certify that: Brewster Sportsman’s Club IS HEREBY GRANTED A ONE-DAY LIQUOR LICENSE PERMT TO ALLOW: BEER and WINE At the Car Show and BBQ Event At the following address: 280 Tubman Road, Brewster, MA 02631 This one-day permit is effective on: Saturday – October 15, 2022 from 2:00pm until 6:00pm Date Issued: September 26, 2022 Select Board __________________________ __________________________ __________________________ __________________________ __________________________ Office of: Select Board Town Administrator Conditions: A barrier or signage should clearly delineate where people are permitted to consume the alcohol served. The emergency access road identified on the submitted parking plan must be kept open for full Fire Department site access during the event. Town of Brewster 2198 Main Street Brewster, MA 02631-1898 Phone: (508) 896-3701 Fax: (508) 896-8089 NUMBER 2021-ODL – 46 2022-ODL-#46 FEE $35.00 Town of Brewster Local Licensing Authority This is to certify that: Chatham Bars Inn Farm IS HEREBY GRANTED A ONE-DAY LIQUOR LICENSE PERMT TO ALLOW: Beer, Wine & Liquor Private Farm to Table Dinner for CBI guests ONLY At the following address: 3038 Main Street, Brewster, MA 02631 This one-day permit is effective on: Thursday October 6, 2022 from 4:00pm -8:00pm Date Issued: September 26, 2022 Select Board __________________________ __________________________ __________________________ __________________________ __________________________ Office of: Select Board Town Administrator A barrier or signage should clearly delineate where people are permitted to consume the alcohol served. Town of Brewster 2198 Main Street Brewster, MA 02631-1898 Phone: (508) 896-3701 Fax: (508) 896-8089 NUMBER 2021-ODL – 46 2022-ODL-#47 FEE $35.00 Town of Brewster Local Licensing Authority This is to certify that: Chatham Bars Inn Farm IS HEREBY GRANTED A ONE-DAY LIQUOR LICENSE PERMT TO ALLOW: Beer, Wine & Liquor “Fall Frolic” – Farm Open House At the following address: 3038 Main Street, Brewster, MA 02631 This one-day permit is effective on: Saturday October 8, 2022 from 10:00am -6:00pm Date Issued: September 26, 2022 Select Board __________________________ __________________________ __________________________ __________________________ __________________________ Office of: Select Board Town Administrator A barrier or signage should clearly delineate where people are permitted to consume the alcohol served. Town of Brewster 2198 Main Street Brewster, MA 02631-1898 Phone: (508) 896-3701 Fax: (508) 896-8089 NUMBER 2021-ODL – 46 2022-1DE- #33 FEE $35.00 Town of Brewster Local Licensing Authority This is to certify that: Chatham Bars Inn Farm IS HEREBY GRANTED A ONE-DAY ENTERTAINMENT LICENSE PERMT TO ALLOW: Acoustic Music “Fall Frolic” Open House at the Farm At the following address: 3038 Main Street, Brewster, MA 02631 This one-day permit is effective on: Saturday October 8, 2022 from 10:00am – 6:00pm Date Issued: September 26, 2022 Select Board __________________________ __________________________ __________________________ __________________________ __________________________ Office of: Select Board Town Administrator Town of Brewster 2198 Main Street Brewster, MA 02631-1898 Phone: (508) 896-3701 Fax: (508) 896-8089 Office of: Select Board Town Administrator September 26, 2022, Re: Town of Brewster T-Mobile Hometown Grant Comprehensive Planning for Former Cape Cod Sea Camps Properties Dear Mr. Freier and T-Mobile Hometown Grant Program Team, The Brewster Select Board voted at its' September 26 meeting to support the application for a T-Mobile Hometown Grant in connection with the planning and design phase for the Town's recently purchased Cape Cod Sea Camps properties. The impetus for this project is the Town's 2018 Vision Plan, which outlines as a priority the maintenance and expansion of open space assets to provide public recreation and to protect the Town's fragile natural habitat. The recently acquired properties offer opportunities for significant public benefits including conservation of land, coastal dunes, and wetlands; habitat and drinking water protection; beach access; a home for a community center; extensive recreational amenities; and community housing. This project is strongly aligned with community priorities identified in the Brewster Vision Plan and resident feedback from other recent strategic planning initiatives. Earlier this year, the Select Board appointed members to two new advisory committees tasked with developing plans regarding the future uses of both parcels. These committees are in the early stages of embarking on the planning and design phase, working with Town staff and a professional interdisciplinary design team. If awarded this grant, these funds will be used to help finance this stage of the project. The planning and design phase of the project is essential to ensure that community feedback is obtained through a public engagement process, and to prepare detailed Master Plans before we move into schematic design for the first phase of construction. The two recently acquired parcels of land offer significant opportunities for the Town. The Town currently lacks a community center, and many departments, such as the Department of Recreation and the Council on Aging, lack the space necessary to adequately service the scale of the programming they provide. Our project team will therefore consider the potential to co-locate these departments in a new intergenerational community center. In response to the ongoing housing crisis in Brewster and Cape Cod, our team will also assess the potential to use the parcels to provide community housing and seasonal workforce rentals. We, the Select Board, are incredibly proud of the Town's recent purchase of the former Cape Cod Sea Camps properties. Last year, residents gave near-unanimous approval for the acquisition at the biggest gathering of Town Meeting voters in Brewster's history. There is overwhelming community support for this project, due to the fact that these parcels of the land have the potential to provide substantial benefits to Brewster for generations to come. It is essential that we make the correct decisions on the future uses of these parcels. This grant would greatly assist in the Town's planning and design phase of this project, helping to fund the contracting of an experienced consultant capable of drafting high quality Master Plans. The Brewster Select Board strongly supports this T-Mobile Hometown Grant application. Sincerely, David Whitney, Chair Brewster Select Board **MEMORANDUM** TO: Brewster Select Board FROM: Jay Packett, Golf Director of Operations DATE: September 15, 2022 RE: Off-Season Memberships Off-season memberships are typically offered each year beginning the day after Labor Day. In 2021, due to the number of members it was decided that we would not offer this membership. After discussion with the Golf Commission and Town Administration I am recommending that for 2022 we offer an off-season membership for Brewster residents only, beginning on October 1, 2022, and expiring on March 31, 2023, with the following price structure: Full Membership - $480.00 Twilight Membership - $200 The Golf Commission voted unanimously to approve this recommendation at their September 13, 2022 meeting. I appreciate your consideration and would be happy to discuss further. 1 Town of Brewster 2198 Main Street Brewster, MA 02631 www.brewster-ma.gov Phone: (508) 896-3701 Email: TownAdmin@brewster-ma.gov Select Board Policies on: Email Use, Information Security, and IT Acceptable Use Establishment date, effective date, and revision procedure The Town of Brewster Information Technology department shall review this policy at least once a year, and at any additional time when there are changes that may affect management with respect to Information Security. In the event that amendment or repeal of this policy becomes necessary as a result of such review, the Town of Brewster Information Technology department shall prepare a draft and apply for authorization, and with prior confirmation of the Executive(s) in charge of the area(s) that will be affected by amendment or repeal, the Town of Brewster Select Board will authorize the amendment or repeal. EMAIL USE POLICY Overview Purpose This policy defines the standards and rules for acceptable and unacceptable use of Town of Brewster’s email system and ensures proper use of that system. Scope The policy applies to all uses of Town of Brewster’s email system by employees, contractors, agents, volunteers, or any other party authorized for its use. Use of The Town of Brewster’s email system is subject to the terms of this policy in addition to those set forth in the Acceptable Use and Access Control Policies. Employees and other users are encouraged to familiarize themselves with the terms of these policies. Policy Acceptable Uses of Email Accounts Town of Brewster provides email accounts primarily for legitimate Town of Brewster business purposes. Personal communication is permitted on a limited basis. Employees have the responsibility to maintain and enhance the organization’s public image and to use the organization’s email system in a responsible, productive, and lawful manner. This section is not intended to limit protected conduct under the National Labor Relations Act or other law. Unacceptable Uses of Email Accounts Non-Town of Brewster related commercial use of the Town of Brewster email system is prohibited. Town of Brewster’s email accounts may not be used for transmitting, retrieving, viewing, or storage of any communications of an unlawfully discriminatory or harassing nature. Materials that Policy No: 35 Date Approved: December 17, 2001 Dates Amended: September 26, 2022 2 are obscene or harassment of any kind is prohibited. No messages with derogatory or inflammatory remarks about an individual’s protected class including race, age, disability, religion, national origin, physical attributes, genetic information, gender identity, or sexual preference shall be transmitted. No emails shall be sent through the Town of Brewster’s email system which unlawfully defame or malign the image, reputation and/or goodwill of the organization and/or any of its employees. Email messages or attachments may also not be used for any purpose that is illegal or otherwise against organization policy or contrary to the organization’s best interests. Solicitation of non-organization business, or any use of the Town of Brewster’s email system for personal gain, is prohibited. Communications Each employee is responsible for the content of all text, audio, or images that he/she transfers to or sends over Town of Brewster’s email system. All emails must contain the identity of the sender and may not represent the sender as a different person or someone from another organization. Any messages or information sent by an employee to another individual outside of the organization via an electronic network (e.g., blog, IM, bulletin board, online service, or Internet) are statements that reflect on the organization. All employees who engage in such personal messaging are encouraged to provide a disclaimer clearly stating that any and all opinions expressed are solely those of the employee and are not those of the organization, as provided in the Acceptable Use Policy. Employees may not automatically forward emails containing the organization’s confidential or sensitive information from Town of Brewster’s email system to a third-party email system such as Google or Yahoo except where prior authorization has been obtained or where permitted or protected by law. All communications sent by employees via Town of Brewster’s email system must comply with the organizations Acceptable Use and Information Security Policies and must provide appropriate safeguards for the organization’s sensitive, confidential, and proprietary information such as strong passwords and approved methods of encryption where appropriate. Such protective measures should be used when sending emails or attachments containing personally identifiable information, protected health information, or other similar information that if lost, misused, or disclosed without authorization, could have an adverse impact on the privacy interests or welfare of others; or when sending confidential or proprietary information such as business, financial, or project strategies. Any questions or concerns regarding encryption of email contents should be directed to the department supervisor or IT department. Privacy Emails are not private. Employees shall have no expectation of privacy in anything they store, send or receive on The Town of Brewster email system. Town of Brewster reserves the right to monitor email content to ensure that the email system is used for appropriate business or legally protected purposes. As a result of such monitoring, certain contents of employee emails may be exposed. Employee emails may also be subject to exposure in the event that Town of Brewster’s email system is compromised allowing unauthorized persons to gain access to employee email content. Finally, employee email contents may be inadvertently exposed where an email routing error occurs resulting in an email being sent to the incorrect recipient. As a result of this potential for exposure, employees are encouraged to not email any content that they would like to remain confidential. Personal Email Accounts Accessing personal email accounts from organization-owned computers is prohibited, as they are a potential source of computer viruses. No organization-related communication is permitted using personal email accounts, as the communication may be subject to the organization’s communication retention policy. One exception to this restriction is where such use of personal email accounts for organization-related communications is permitted or protected under the National Labor Relations Act or other law. With prior approval, personal email accounts may be 3 used for communications in the event the security of The Town of Brewster email system is compromised. Spam Sending abusive, unwanted, or harassing email of any kind using a Town of Brewster email account is prohibited, except in limited circumstances where such activity is permitted or protected by law. Copyright Issues Employees may not use Town of Brewster’s Internet system to violate the copyright protection of materials belonging to entities other than this organization. Please note that non-adherence to this policy puts the organization in serious legal jeopardy and opens the organization up to significant lawsuits and public embarrassment. All employees obtaining access to other organization’s or individuals’ materials must respect all copyrights and may not copy, retrieve, modify, or forward copyrighted materials, except with permission. Failure to observe copyright or license agreements may result in disciplinary action up to and including termination. Employees are additionally prohibited from copying, retrieving, modifying, or forwarding copyrighted and other protected materials belonging to Town of Brewster for non-business purposes except where expressly authorized to do so or where limited use of such information is protected by law. Under all circumstances, employees must comply with applicable copyright and other similar intellectual property laws. If there are questions or concerns regarding the protected status of any piece of information, the employee should consult his/her supervisor. Monitoring Town of Brewster routinely monitors usage patterns in its Internet communications for legitimate business purposes which include cost analysis, security, bandwidth allocation, and the general management of the organization’s gateway to the Internet. All messages created, sent, or retrieved over the organization’s Internet are the property of the organization and should be considered public information. In the event that reasonable suspicion exists that sensitive, confidential, or proprietary information belonging to the organization has been downloaded or transferred from Town of Brewster’s email system to an employee’s personal email account, any related emails within the employee’s personal email account may also be subject to limited monitoring or auditing by the organization in order to prevent unlawful use of intellectual property, to assess the degree of any resulting potential data breach, or as part of any related legal proceedings. Town of Brewster reserves the right to access and monitor the content of all messages and files on the organization’s Internet system at any time in the future with or without notice. Employees should not assume electronic communications via Town of Brewster’s email system are private and should transmit personal confidential data in other ways. Emails are also considered public records under the Massachusetts Public Records Laws and employees should assume that anything sent using the Town of Brewster’s email system will be subject to monitoring and disclosure. Retention Organization communications of any kind typically need to be retained the same as any other document. Certain email communications may be subject to specific requirements as per the Massachusetts Municipal Public Records Retention Schedule depending on the subject or purpose of the email. All emails deleted from an employee’s email inbox are still saved on the Town of Brewster email archive server and retained. 4 Email Attachments Attachments with the following file extensions are prohibited, as they are potential security and virus threats: .bat Batch processing file used to execute system commands or programs. .com Windows command files. .cpl Control panel extension. .exe Windows binary executable files. .js Java script files. .ocx Object linking and embedding control. .pif Program information file used to tell Windows how to run non-Windows applications. .scr Screen saver programs; may include binary code. .sys System configuration files. .vb Visual Basic script files. There is also a limit of 25 MB of attachments for any email message. Employees should contact the IT Helpdesk if there is a need to transfer more than 25 MB of files at any one time. INFORMATION SECURITY POLICY Overview Purpose The purpose of this policy is to describe Town of Brewster’s commitment, and the commitment of its management, to preserving the confidentiality, integrity, authenticity, and reliability of business- related information and personal information in the possession or control of the company and/or any of its employees, agents, contractors, subsidiaries, or affiliates, through the establishment of a comprehensive information security program. Scope This policy applies to employees, elected or appointed officials, contractors, consultants, volunteers, temporary and other workers at Town of Brewster. This policy applies to all equipment that is owned or leased by, or otherwise in the custody or control of the Town of Brewster. This policy applies to the use of all information, electronic and computing devices, and network resources used by Town of Brewster to conduct business or interact with internal networks and business systems, whether owned or leased by, or otherwise in the custody or control of, Town of Brewster, the employee, a subsidiary, or a third party. Definitions Information Security: As used in this Policy, information security means the preservation of the confidentiality, integrity, authenticity, and reliability of information through safeguards designed to protect against any unauthorized access, use, modification, or disclosure. Policy Town of Brewster recognize the importance of managing information security risk across all levels of the organization in a manner that aligns with organizational principles, goals, and business continuity and processes. Executive management will set the organization’s risk tolerance and implement policies and procedures that effectuate the organization’s information security interests 5 and align with its risk appetite. Accordingly, policies and procedures will be enacted that address the following: 1. Management of all user IDs and passwords on IT Assets; 2. Management of all access control lists on all IT Assets; 3. Execution and review of all audit trails; 4. Incident response and reporting; and 5. All other tasks necessary to support this Policy. The Town may enact additional policies and procedures in its discretion in order to provide the appropriate level of protection to business-related information in the possession or control of the Town and/or any of its employees, agents, contractors, subsidiaries, or affiliates. Framework of Town of Brewster’s Information Security Program In order to effectively manage risk to information security, Town of Brewster will provide for the following safeguards: 1. Access control and user authentication management. Physical and technological access control will be implemented to provide only authorized users with access to sensitive business information, systems, and networks for legitimate business purposes. 2. System and network monitoring. All systems and networks will be monitored through review of access logs, activity logs, fault logs, and privileged operations in order to detect any suspicious activity that could signal internal abuse of access rights or the presence of an intruder. 3. Ongoing assessment of information security risk. Risk assessments will be conducted to identify newly developed or developing vulnerabilities in systems and networks and to determine what modifications if any should be made to existing information security safeguards. As part of such assessments, information classifications shall be reviewed to ensure such classes are appropriate for the level of risk associated with the information. 4. Employee training and awareness. All employees will be trained on basic information security such as recognition of social engineering schemes (e.g., phishing and spear phishing), ransomware, authorized uses and disclosures of information, and proper transmission, storage, and disposal/destruction of data. Employees will be responsible to secure transmission and storage of sensitive data through encryption or other appropriate means where required by data class or law. 5. Compliance with legal obligations. The information security program will provide an awareness of and comply with federal and state laws and contractual obligations including those related to protection of personal information. 6. Vendor Management. Whenever confidential or sensitive data is released to entities outside of the organization, and a legitimate business reason exists for releasing the information, a written Non-Disclosure Agreement (NDA), requiring the data recipient's agreement to maintain that data in confidence and restrict its use and dissemination, will be obtained before disclosing the data. Ongoing assessment of vendor relationships and vendor compliance with existing NDA’s and other agreements will be conducted by the relevant vendor owners. 6 7. Information security incident preparedness. Detailed procedures will be in place to manage and direct the organization’s response to an information security incident including designation of an Incident Response Team and the role of each team member. 8. Business Continuity Plan. Information security will be coordinated to effectuate and further the goals of the organization’s business continuity plan. 9. Sanctions for violations. Appropriate warnings or disciplinary action will be brought against any employee, agent, contractor, or affiliate of the organization who violates the terms of any of the organizations information security policies, including possible termination of employment or expulsion from the organization’s premises. Additional safeguards may be necessary to protect assets of greater criticality, or where, after conducting a risk assessment, it is determined that the current information security program is insufficient to protect the organization’s information, systems, and/or networks commensurate with the organization’s risk tolerance. Information Security Roles and Responsibilities Information Security will be primarily managed by Town of Brewster’s Information Technology personnel. Individual department managers will be responsible for ensuring that employees within their departments are complying with Town of Brewster information security policies and procedures. Responsibilities of those in information security roles will include: 1. Fostering an organizational climate where information security is prioritized and considered in the context of business continuity and objectives. 2. Defining the security requirements, controls and mechanisms applicable to all covered data. 3. Defining the methods and guidelines used to identify and classify all covered data. 4. Defining the procedures for identifying data owners for all covered data. 5. Defining the labeling requirements for all covered data. 6. Defining all other data security usage, processing, transmission, storage and disposal processes and procedures. 7. Assisting department managers and supervisors to better understand how information security risks associated with their systems translate to organization-wide risk. 8. Providing ongoing assessment of the risk to the organization’s information, systems, and networks. 9. Monitoring the organization’s systems and networks for questionable activity. 10. Defining the procedures necessary to ensure compliance to this policy by all organization users and vendors. 11. Ensuring Town Administration remains apprised of the organization’s information security posture and any developing risks. 7 12. Assisting in the Town’s ongoing compliance with state and federal law and other legal obligations. 13. Working with other Incident Response Team members to respond to, contain, and eradicate information security incidents. ACCEPTABLE IT EQUIPMENT USE Overview Effective information security requires the support and participation of all employees and affiliates of Town of Brewster who deal with company information and/or information systems. All computer users within the Town are responsible for reading and following the guidelines set forth below. Purpose This policy describes the acceptable use of Town of Brewster’s computer equipment. By complying with the directives set forth below, employees help to protect Town of Brewster from risk of malware attacks, compromise of network systems and services, and legal liability. Scope This policy applies to employees, contractors, consultants, elected or appointed officials, volunteers, temporary and other workers at Town of Brewster, and all personnel affiliated with company subsidiaries or third parties. This policy applies to all equipment that is owned or leased by, or otherwise in the custody or control of the Town of Brewster. This policy applies to the use of all information, electronic and computing devices, and network resources used by the Town of Brewster to conduct business or interact with internal networks and business systems, whether owned or leased by, or otherwise in the custody or control of, Town of Brewster, the employee, a subsidiary, or a third party. Policy All employees, contractors, consultants, elected or appointed officials, volunteers, temporary and other workers at Town of Brewster, are responsible for exercising good judgment regarding appropriate and reasonable use of information, electronic devices, and network resources in a manner that complies with Town of Brewster’s policies and procedures, and local laws and regulations. General Use and Ownership 1. Town of Brewster’s proprietary information created and/or stored on electronic and computing devices whether owned or leased by, or otherwise in the custody or control of, Town of Brewster, the employee, or a third party, remains the sole property of Town of Brewster. 2. Employees have a responsibility to promptly report the theft, loss or unauthorized disclosure of Town of Brewster proprietary or confidential information such as legally protected private information involving citizens or employees. 3. Employees may access, use or share private information in the Town of Brewster’s custody, only to the extent it is authorized and necessary to fulfill their assigned job duties or in limited circumstances where such access, use, or disclosure is protected under the National Labor Relations Act and is compliant with applicable laws. 8 4. All employees are responsible for exercising good judgment regarding the reasonableness of their personal use. Individual departments are responsible for creating their own guidelines concerning personal use of Internet/Intranet/Extranet systems. In the absence of such guidelines, employees should consult their supervisor or manager. 5. Information considered sensitive or vulnerable may be encrypted. Such information includes but is not limited to employee personal information, private citizen or taxpayer information, and Town of Brewster confidential information. 6. In order to maintain the security and integrity of Town systems and networks, authorized individuals within Town of Brewster may monitor electronic and computing equipment, systems, and network traffic at any time. 7. Town of Brewster reserves the right to audit all electronic and computing equipment, networks, and systems on a periodic basis to ensure compliance with this policy. 8. Employees and users of Town of Brewster equipment are expected to take charge of their own training by attending in-house classes provided by the IT department and reviewing and becoming familiar with software documentation. 9. Nothing in this policy shall be construed to interfere with releasing information to the public as required by the Open Meeting Law or Massachusetts Public Records Laws. Security and Proprietary Information 1. Mobile and computing devices that connect to the internal network will be limited to the minimum access necessary to conduct business in order to protect Town of Brewster’s sensitive, proprietary, or confidential information from potential compromise. However, nothing in this paragraph shall be construed to interfere with or restrict employee rights under the National Labor Relations Act. 2. All system level and user level passwords must comply with the security requirements of the Access Control Policy. Employees are prohibited from providing any other individual access to company networks and systems, either intentionally or through failure to take reasonable steps to secure their access. 3. All computing devices shall be secured with a password-protected screensaver that activates automatically after 10 minutes or less. Employees must manually lock the screen or log off when leaving their computing device unattended. 4. Employees must use extreme caution and comply with the safeguards in Town of Brewster’s Email Policy when opening e-mail attachments received from unknown senders, which may contain malware. 5. Employees must safeguard all Town of Brewster equipment assigned to their exclusive or shared use, and all Town of Brewster equipment within their work area. 6. Employees traveling with Town of Brewster laptop computers must always carry them in carry- on baggage and not in checked baggage. 9 Unacceptable Use The following activities are prohibited. Employees may be exempted from certain restrictions where required to engage in legitimate job responsibilities (e.g., systems administration staff may need to engage in specified restricted activity in order to test company security vulnerabilities or to disable the network access of a host if that host is disrupting production services or police may need to access inappropriate websites as part of an investigation). Employees may also be exempted from specific restrictions in limited circumstances where activities are protected by the National Labor Relations Act. Employees are prohibited from engaging in any activity that is illegal under local, state, federal or international law while utilizing Town of Brewster-owned resources. The lists below are not exhaustive, but attempt to provide guidance on what activities fall into the category of unacceptable use. System and Network Activities The following activities are strictly prohibited: 1. Violating the rights of any person or company protected by copyright, trade secret, patent or other intellectual property laws and regulations, including, but not limited to, installing or distributing "pirated" or other software products for which the Town of Brewster lacks an appropriate license. 2. Unauthorized and unlawful reproduction of materials protected by copyright including activities such as digitization and distribution of photographs from magazines, books, online databases, or other similar copyrighted sources, copyrighted music, and the installation of any copyright protected software for which Town of Brewster or other end user lacks a valid license. 3. Accessing data, a server or an account for any purpose other than conducting Town of Brewster business or for limited activities protected by the National Labor Relations Act, such as union organizing or other protected concerted activities. 4. Exporting technical information, software, or encryption software or technology, in a manner prohibited by international or regional export control laws. Employees should consult management prior to exporting any material that is in question. 5. Introducing malicious programs into company networks or servers (e.g., viruses, worms, Trojan horses, e-mail bombs, suspicious packers, etc.). 6. Disclosing account passwords to others or allowing others to access and use your account in any manner. This includes access or use by family and other household members when working from home. 7. Using a Town of Brewster computing device to procure or transmit material that is in violation of the organization’s anti-discrimination and harassment policies and state and federal laws. 8. Using any Town of Brewster account to make fraudulent offers of products, goods, or services. 9. Making statements about warranty, expressly or implied, of any product, good, or service unless such statements are part of legitimate job duties. 10. Effecting security breaches or disruptions of network communication or services. Security breaches include, but are not limited to, accessing data of which the employee is not an intended 10 recipient or logging into a server or account that the employee is not expressly authorized to access, unless such activities are within the scope of regular business duties or otherwise permitted by law. For purposes of this section, "disruption" includes, but is not limited to, bulk email or spam, denial of service, packet spoofing, network sniffing, pinged floods, and forged routing information for malicious purposes. 11. Using any form of network monitoring that intercepts data not intended for the employee's host, unless this activity is a part of legitimate job duties. 12. Bypassing user authentication and/or security of any host electronic or computer device, network, or account owned by Town of Brewster. 13. Disabling anti-virus software on workstations or devices. 14. Interfering with or denying service to another user’s host (for example, denial of service attack). 15. Sending any messages such as programs, scripts, or commands with the intent to cause interference of, or disable, a user's terminal session, by any means, whether locally or via the Internet/Intranet/Extranet. 16. Disclosing information about, or lists of Town of Brewster’s employees to customers, competitors, or other similar parties outside of Town of Brewster. 17. Hacking systems and databases or acting to disrupt systems or cause unnecessary network congestion or application delays. 18. Using remote control or remote access software on any internal or external host personal computers or systems not specifically set up by the IT staff. 19. Using Town of Brewster equipment for personal profit, political fundraising, gambling activity, non-business-related instant messaging or chat room discussions, or downloading or displaying of offensive material, unless such fundraising or messaging activity is for the limited purpose of exercising employee rights under the National Labor Relations Act, such as union organizing or other protected concerted activity. 20. Browsing pornographic, offensive, or otherwise undesired and questionable sites on the internet which may result in introduction of malicious programs into the company’s network or server. Email and Communication Activities Employees are perceived to represent the Town when they use Town resources to access the Internet. To avoid confusion, during online communications unrelated to legitimate work responsibilities, whenever employees state an affiliation to the Town of Brewster, they are encouraged to clearly indicate the following: "I do not represent the Town in any manner. Any opinions expressed on this matter are my own and not necessarily those of the Town". However, such disclosure is not required for limited communications protected by the National Labor Relations Act. Questions concerning such disclosures should be addressed to the IT Department or Town Administrator’s Office. The following email activities are strictly prohibited: 1. Sending unsolicited email messages, including the sending of "junk mail" or other advertising material to individuals who did not specifically request such material (email spam), except in 11 limited circumstances where such communication is protected by the National Labor Relations Act, such as union organizing or other protected concerted activity. 2. Any form of unlawful harassment via email, telephone or texting, whether perceived as harassment through language, frequency, or size of messages. 3. Unauthorized use, misappropriation, or forging of information in email headers. 4. Solicitation of emails for another email address, other than that of the poster's account, with the intent to unlawfully harass or collect replies. 5. Creating or forwarding harassing and unwanted "chain letters", "Ponzi", or other "pyramid" schemes of any type regardless of content, sources, or destinations. Nothing in this paragraph will be construed to limit employees from engaging in legitimate protected concerted activity under the National Labor Relations Act. 6. Posting Town of Brewster proprietary or confidential information to external newsgroups, bulletin boards, or other public forums without authority. 7. Any use of unsolicited emails obtained from within Town of Brewster's networks that were sent by other Internet/Intranet/Extranet service providers on behalf of, or to advertise, services hosted by Town of Brewster or connected via Town of Brewster's network. 8. Posting non-business-related messages to large numbers of Usenet newsgroups (newsgroup spam) or other similar abusive tactics. Blogging 1. Blogging by employees, whether using Town of Brewster’s property and systems or personal computer systems, when used to carry out job responsibilities, is also subject to the terms and restrictions set forth in this Policy. Limited and occasional use of Town of Brewster’s systems to engage in blogging related to legitimate job-related responsibilities is acceptable, provided that it is done in a professional and responsible manner, does not otherwise violate Town of Brewster’s policy, is not detrimental to Town of Brewster’s best interests or image, and does not interfere with an employee's regular work duties. However, nothing in this paragraph shall be construed to limit employees’ rights to discuss the terms and conditions of their employment or to engage in other legitimate protected concerted activities under the National Labor Relations Act. Employees should also note that blogging from Town of Brewster’s systems is subject to monitoring. 2. Employees shall not engage in any blogging whether during the course of business duties or after working hours that unlawfully defames or maligns the image, reputation and/or goodwill of Town of Brewster and/or any of its employees. Employees are also prohibited from making any discriminatory, disparaging, defamatory, harassing, or otherwise unlawful comments when blogging, or otherwise engaging in any conduct prohibited by Town of Brewster’s Anti- Discrimination and Harassment policy. 3. Employees may not hold themselves out as representatives of the company or attribute personal statements, opinions or beliefs to Town of Brewster when engaged in blogging or posting to newsgroups, or other social media. If an employee expresses his or her beliefs and/or opinions in blogs or social media posts, the employee is encouraged to disclose the following: "I do not represent the town government in any manner. Any opinions expressed on this matter are my own and not necessarily those of the town government". However, where engaging in limited activity protected by the National Labor Relations Act, such as discussing terms and conditions 12 of employment, employees need not provide such disclosure. Employees who engage in blogging outside the scope of their job duties assume any and all associated risk. 4. Employees are prohibited from revealing any Town of Brewster confidential or proprietary information, or any other material designated as confidential when engaged in blogging. 5. In addition to following all laws pertaining to the handling and disclosure of copyrighted or export controlled materials, Town of Brewster’s trademarks, logos and any other Town of Brewster intellectual property may also not be used in connection with any blogging activity except in limited circumstances where such use is protected by the National Labor Relations Act. In all circumstances, employees must comply with all applicable copyright, trademark, and other similar intellectual property laws. (See also policy #55-Social Media Use and #56-Facebook Policy) Policy Compliance Compliance Measurement Compliance with these policies will be verified by the Town of Brewster through various methods, including but not limited to, business tool reports, internal and external audits, and feedback to the IT Department and Town Manager. Exceptions Any exception to these policies must be approved by the Select Board or Town Administrator in advance. Non-Compliance An employee found to have violated these policies may be subject to disciplinary action, up to and including termination of employment. Approved by the Brewster Select Board on September 26, 2022 ____________________________ _____________________________ David Whitney, Chair Edward Chatelain, Vice Chair ____________________________ _____________________________ Kari Hoffmann, Clerk Mary Chaffee _____________________________ Cynthia Bingham 13 By signing below, I acknowledge that I have read and fully understand my obligations under the Policies relating to Emails, Information Security, and IT Acceptable Use and hereby agree to abide by its terms. _______________________________ _____________________ Employee Name Date 1 Erika Mawn From:Andreana Sideris Sent:Tuesday, September 20, 2022 2:55 PM To:Erika Mawn Subject:FW: Permission Request for Native Plant Survey on Town of Brewster Property Hi Erika, We received a request to conduct a scientific study at Round Pond. Please see email below for more information. We will add this item to our agenda for our meeting on September 27th. The parcel they are requesting to access is 19-50 and under the care and custody of the Select Board. From what I understand, the Select Board will need to approve the use of this property and the Conservation Commission will need to approve the scientific study. Please let me know if I am missing something. Thank you, Andi From: Micah Jasny <mjasny@nativeplanttrust.org> Sent: Tuesday, September 13, 2022 11:58 AM To: conserv <conservation@brewster-ma.gov>; Andreana Sideris <asideris@brewster-ma.gov> Subject: Permission Request for Native Plant Survey on Town of Brewster Property Hello Conservation Administrator Aguiar, My name is Micah Jasny and I am the Botanical Coordinator for Native Plant Trust. We are a non-profit plant conservation organization that works with Mass Fish & Wildlife to monitor populations of native plant populations throughout the Commonwealth. I am emailing you because we are interested in conducting a survey for a native plant called Plymouth rose- gentian (Sabatia kennedyana) located on Town of Brewster property. Specifically, we believe the plants are located along the shoreline of Round Pond (see below). We would like to send our trained volunteer botanists to visit the site to see if the plants are still there and, if so, record some data about the population and potentially collect a small sample of seed. We are happy to have the surveyors coordinate the best date/time to visit the site and can send you a report at the end of the season detailing the results. Please let me know if you have any questions or would like any additional information and I look forward to hearing from you soon. Warm regards, Micah 2 Micah Jasny Botanical Coordinator he/him/his 180 Hemenway Road Framingham, MA 01701 T: 508-877-7630 ext. 3204 F: 508-877-3658 www.NativePlantTrust.org Conserving and promoting New England's native plants to ensure healthy, biologically diverse landscapes Archive d: Monday, September 26, 2022 4:16:31 PM From: Chris Miller Se nt: Mon, 26 Sep 2022 19:59:10 +0000Authentication To: Peter Lombardi; Conor Kenny Cc: Ryan Burch; Erika Mawn; Donna Kalinick Subje ct: RE: Boat on beach over weekend; request to use Ellis Landing for a tow truck to move boat Se ns itivity: Normal If possible, yes. Chri s From: Pe ter Lombardi <plombardi@brewster-ma.gov> Sent: Monday, Se ptember 26, 2022 3:58 PM To: Chri s Miller <cmi l l e r@brewster-ma.gov>; Conor Kenny <ckenny@bre wste r-ma.gov> Cc: Ryan Burch <rburch@brewster-ma.gov>; Erika Mawn <emawn@brewster-ma.gov>; Donna Kal i ni ck <dkalinick@brewster-ma.gov> Subject: RE: Boat on be ach over weekend; request to use El l i s Landi ng for a tow truck to move boat Shoul d we ame nd toni ght's agenda and add this? Se n t fro m my Ve ri zo n, Sa ms un g Ga l a xy s ma rtp ho ne -------- Origi nal me ssage -------- From: Chris Mi l l e r <cmiller@brewster-ma.gov> Date : 9/26/22 10:04 AM (GMT-05:00) To: Conor Kenny <ckenny@brewster-ma.gov>, Peter Lombardi <plombardi@brewster-ma.gov> Cc: Ryan Burch <rburch@brewster-ma.gov> Subje ct: Boat on be ach over weekend; request to use El l i s Landi ng for a tow truck to move boat Good morni ng, We had a fe w boats bre ak thei r moorings with this we e kend’s storm. One e nde d up very hi gh on an associ ation beach be twe e n El l i s Landi ng and Poi nt of Rocks. The owner, Frank Hooper, wi shes to hire a tow truck to pull the boat down below the high ti de mark so it can fl oat of f and be moore d agai n. There is no way to move the boat wi thout some form of equi pme nt. He has been i n contact wi th Silve r Cl oud towing but needs Se l e ct Board approval of this use of the landi ng prior to arrangi ng the removal. He proposes to go out from El l i s Landi ng. We re comme nd you approve thi s request. A tow truck could drive out across the flats l ate r this week in the early morni ng, and the boat woul d re float as the high ti de comes i n later in the afternoon. The tide s are good this week, but nex t week the y are not as high so it would be be st to accomplish the removal i n the nex t se veral days. -- Chri s Miller, Di rector Bre wste r Departme nt of Natural Resources 508-896-4546 x4244 cmiller@bre wste r-ma.gov Bre wste r Town Offices are open to the public Monday through Thursday from 8:30 am to 4:00 pm, and by appointment on Fri days. For the latest updates on Town se rvi ce s, please vi si t www.brewster-ma.gov Town of Brewster 2198 Main Street Brewster, MA 02631-1898 Phone: (508) 896-3701 Fax: (508) 896-8089 MEMORANDUM TO: Brewster Select Board FROM: Donna J. Kalinick, Assistant Town Administrator & Jill Scalise, Housing Coordinator RE: Habitat for Humanity-Red Top Road Regulatory Agreement DATE: September 23, 2022 Habitat for Humanity, through a generous donation of land from a Brewster resident, will begin construction of 2 homes on Red Top Road. Habitat for Humanity has received their Comprehensive Permit through the Zoning Board of Appeals and support for this build from the residents of Brewster, through a Community Preservation Grant. The last step in the regulatory process is to execute a Regulatory Agreement with the Town. The Regulatory Agreement in your packet has been reviewed by both the Department of Housing and Community Development (DHCD) and Town legal counsel. We expect construction to commence in October 2022 with a wall raising in October 2023 and final completion in the spring of 2024. The Housing Department and Administration have worked with Beth Wade, Habitat Director of Land Acquisition and Project Development and other key town departments to bring another successful Habitat for Humanity build to the Town of Brewster. Office of: Town Administrator Housing Coordinator RA Page 1 Sept. 2, 2016 LOCAL INITIATIVE PROGRAM REGULATORY AGREEMENT AND DECLARATION OF RESTRICTIVE COVENANTS FOR OWNERSHIP PROJECT This Regulatory Agreement and Declaration of Restrictive Covenants (the “Agreement”) is made this ___ day of _____________ 20__ by and among the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, acting by and through the Department of Housing and Community Development (“DHCD”), pursuant to G.L. c. 23B §1 as amended by Chapter 19 of the Acts of 2007, the Town of Brewster (“the Municipality”), and Habitat for Humanity of Cape Cod, Inc., a Massachusetts corporation, having an address at,411 Main Street (Rte. 6A), Suite 6, Yarmouth Port, MA 02675 and its successors and assigns (“Project Sponsor”). WITNESSETH: WHEREAS, pursuant to G.L. c. 40B, §§ 20-23 (the “Act”) and the final report of the Special Legislative Commission Relative to Low and Moderate Income Housing Provisions issued in April 1989, regulations have been promulgated at 760 CMR 56.00 (the “Regulations”) which establish the Local Initiative Program (“LIP”); WHEREAS, the Project Sponsor intends to construct a housing development known as Red Top Road Community Housing at a .56 acre± site on 26 Red Top Road in the Municipality, more particularly described in Exhibit A attached hereto and made a part hereof (the “Project”); WHEREAS, such Project is to consist of a total number of two (2) detached dwellings (the “Units”) and two (2) of the Units will be sold at prices specified in this Agreement to persons or households with incomes at or below eighty percent (80%) of the regional median household income (the “Low and Moderate Income Units”); WHEREAS, upon application of the Chief Executive Officer of the Municipality (as that term is defined in the Regulations) and the Project Sponsor, DHCD made a determination of project eligibility pursuant to 760 CMR 56.04 and the Project Sponsor has received a comprehensive permit from the Zoning Board of Appeals of the Municipality, which permit is recorded/filed at the Barnstable County Registry of Deeds in Book 34849, Page_19 as Document No. 3737 (the “Comprehensive Permit); and WHEREAS, in partial consideration of the execution of this Agreement, DHCD is issuing its final approval of the Project within the LIP Program pursuant to Section 19 of this Agreement, and has given and will give technical and other assistance to the Project; NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the agreements and covenants hereinafter set forth, and other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which each of the parties hereto hereby acknowledge to the other, DHCD, the Municipality, and the Project Sponsor hereby agree and covenant as follows: RA Page 2 Sept. 2, 2016 1. The Project Sponsor agrees to construct the Project in accordance with plans and specifications approved by the Municipality (the “Plans and Specifications”) and in accordance with all terms and conditions of the Comprehensive Permit]. In addition, all Low and Moderate Income Units to be constructed as part of the Project must be indistinguishable from other Units in the Project from the exterior (unless the Project has an approved “Alternative Development Plan” as set forth in the Comprehensive Permit Guidelines (the “Guidelines”)) published by DHCD, and must contain complete living facilities including but not limited to a stove, refrigerator, kitchen cabinets, plumbing fixtures, and washer/dryer hookup, all as more fully shown in the Plans and Specifications. ________ of the Low and Moderate Income Units shall be one bedroom units; ________ of the Low and Moderate Income Units shall be two bedroom units; two (2) of the Low and Moderate Income Units shall be three bedroom units; and,________ of the Low and Moderate Income Units shall be four bedroom units. All Low and Moderate Income Units to be occupied by families must contain two or more bedrooms. Low and Moderate Income Units must have the following minimum areas: one bedroom units - 700 square feet two bedroom units - 900 square feet three bedroom units - 1200 square feet four bedroom units - 1400 square feet The Project must fully comply with the State Building Code and with all applicable state and federal building, environmental, health, safety and other laws, rules, and regulations, including without limitation all applicable federal and state laws, rules and regulations relating to the operation of adaptable and accessible housing for persons with disabilities. Except to the extent that the Project is exempted from such compliance by the Comprehensive Permit, the Project must also comply with all applicable local codes, ordinances and by-laws. Each Low and Moderate Income Unit will be sold for no more than the price set forth in Exhibit B attached hereto and made a part hereof to an Eligible Purchaser. An Eligible Purchaser is a Family (i) whose annual income does not exceed eighty percent (80%) of the Area median income adjusted for family size as determined by the U. S. Department of Housing and Urban Development and (ii) whose assets do not exceed the limits specified in the Guidelines. A “Family” shall mean two or more persons who will live regularly in the Low or Moderate Income Unit as their primary residence and who are related by blood, marriage, or operation of law or who have otherwise evidenced a stable inter-dependent relationship; or an individual. The “Area” is defined as the Barnstable County. 2. Upon the occurrence of one of the events described in 760 CMR 56.03(2), the Project will be included in the Subsidized Housing Inventory as that term is described in 760 CMR 56.01. Only Low and Moderate Income Units will be counted as SHI Eligible Housing as that term is described in 760 CMR 56.01 for the purposes of the Act. 3. (a) At the time of sale of each Low and Moderate Income Unit by the Project Sponsor, the Project Sponsor shall execute and shall as a condition of the sale cause the purchaser RA Page 3 Sept. 2, 2016 of the Low and Moderate Income Unit to execute an Affordable Housing Deed Rider in the form of Exhibit C attached hereto and made a part hereof (the “Deed Rider”). Such Deed Rider shall be attached to and made a part of the deed from the Project Sponsor to the Unit Purchaser. Each such Deed Rider shall require the Unit Purchaser at the time he desires to sell the Low and Moderate Income Unit to offer the Low and Moderate Income Unit to the Municipality and to DHCD at a discounted purchase price more particularly described therein. The Municipality and DHCD shall have the option upon terms more particularly described in the Deed Rider to either purchase the Low and Moderate Income Unit or to find an Eligible Purchaser. The Deed Rider shall require the Unit Purchaser and the Eligible Purchaser to execute at the time of resale a Deed Rider identical in form and substance to the Deed Rider then in effect with respect to the Low and Moderate Income Unit which will be attached and made a part of the deed from the Unit Purchaser to the Eligible Purchaser, so that the affordability of the Low and Moderate Income unit will be preserved each time that subsequent resales of the Low and Moderate Income unit occur. (The various requirements and restrictions regarding resale of a Low and Moderate Income Unit contained in the Deed Rider are hereinafter referred to as the (“Resale Restrictions”). If upon the initial resale or any subsequent resale of a Low and Moderate Income Unit, the Municipality and DHCD are unable to find an Eligible Purchaser for the Low and Moderate Income Unit, and the Municipality and DHCD each elect not to exercise its right to purchase the Low and Moderate Income Unit, then the then current owner of the Low and Moderate Income Unit shall have the right to sell the Low and Moderate Income Unit to any person, regardless of his income (an “Ineligible Purchaser”) at the Maximum Resale Price and subject to all rights and restrictions contained in the Deed Rider, and provided that the Unit is conveyed subject to a Deed Rider identical in form and substance to the Deed Rider then in effect with respect to the Low and Moderate Income Unit which will be attached and made part of the deed from the Unit Purchaser to the Ineligible Purchaser. (b) For each sale of a Low and Moderate Income Unit, DHCD must approve the terms of the Eligible Purchaser’s mortgage financing as evidenced by DHCD’s issuance of the Resale Price Certificate described in the Deed Rider. (c) The Municipality agrees that in the event that it purchases a Low and Moderate Income Unit pursuant to its right to do so contained in the Deed Rider then in effect with respect to such Low and Moderate Income Unit, that the Municipality shall within six (6) months of its acceptance of a deed of such Low and Moderate Income Unit, either (i) sell the Low and Moderate Income Unit to an Eligible Purchaser at the same price for which it purchased the Low and Moderate Income Unit plus any expenses incurred by the Municipality during its period of ownership, such expenses to be approved by DHCD, subject to a Deed Rider satisfactory in form and substance to DHCD and the recording of an Eligible Purchaser Certificate satisfactory in form and substance to DHCD, the method for selecting such Eligible Purchaser to be approved by DHCD or (ii) rent the Low and Moderate Income Unit to a person who meets the income guidelines of the LIP Program, upon terms and conditions satisfactory to DHCD and otherwise in conformity with the requirements of the LIP Program. If the Municipality fails to sell or rent the Low and Moderate income unit as provided herein within said six (6) month period, or if at any time after the initial rental of the Low and Moderate Income Unit by the Municipality as provided herein the Low and Moderate Income Unit becomes vacant and remains vacant for more than ninety (90) days, then such Low and Moderate Income Unit shall cease to be counted as SHI Eligible Housing, and shall no longer be included in the Subsidized Housing Inventory. RA Page 4 Sept. 2, 2016 (d) Each Low and Moderate Income Unit will remain SHI Eligible Housing and continue to be included in the Subsidized Housing Inventory for as long as the following three conditions are met: (1) this Agreement remains in full force and effect and neither the Municipality nor the Project Sponsor is in default hereunder; (2) the Project and Low and Moderate Income Unit each continue to comply with the Regulations and the Guidelines as the same may be amended from time to time; and (3) either (i) a Deed Rider binding the then current owner of the Low and Moderate Income Unit to comply with the Resale Restrictions is in full force and effect and the then current owner of the Low and Moderate Income Unit is either in compliance with the terms of the Deed Rider, or the Municipality is in the process of taking such steps as may be required by DHCD to enforce the then current owner's compliance with the terms of the Deed Rider or (ii) the Low and Moderate Income Unit is owned by the Municipality and the Municipality is in compliance with the terms and conditions of the last preceding paragraph, or (iii) the Low and Moderate Income Unit is owned by DHCD. 4. Within one hundred eighty (180) days after Substantial Completion of the Project or, if later, within sixty (60) days of the date on which all the units in the Project are sold, the Project Sponsor shall complete and deliver to the Municipality and to DHCD the section of the Local Initiative Program Application for Comprehensive Permit Projects entitled “Project Feasibility – Ownership Projects” (ownership pro forma, profit analysis, and cost analysis), documenting the actual development costs of and income from the Project, prepared and signed by the Chief Financial Officer of the Project Sponsor. Substantial Completion shall be deemed to have occurred when construction of the Project is sufficiently complete so that the Unit may be occupied and amenities may be used for their intended purpose, except for designated punch list items and seasonal work which does not interfere with the residential use of the Low and Moderate Income Units. 5. (a) Prior to marketing or otherwise making available for sale any of the Units, the Project Sponsor must obtain DHCD's approval of a marketing plan (the “Marketing Plan”) for the Low and Moderate Income Units. Such Marketing Plan must describe the buyer selection process for the Low and Moderate Income Units and must set forth a plan for affirmative fair marketing of Low and Moderate Income Units and effective outreach to protected groups underrepresented in the municipality, including provisions for a lottery, consistent with the Regulations and Guidelines. At the option of the Municipality, and provided that the Marketing Plan demonstrates (i) the need for the local preference (e.g., a disproportionately low rental or ownership affordable housing stock relative to need in comparison to the regional area), and (ii) that the proposed local preference will not have a disparate impact on protected classes, the Marketing Plan may also include a preference for local residents for up to seventy percent (70%) of the Low and Moderate Income Units, subject to all provisions of the Regulations and Guidelines, provided that any local preference shall apply only to the initial unit sales by the Project Sponsor. When submitted to DHCD for approval, the Marketing Plan should be accompanied by a letter from the Chief Executive Officer of the Municipality (as that term is defined in the Regulations) which states that the buyer selection and local preference (if any) aspects of the Marketing Plan have been approved by the Municipality and which states that the Municipality will perform any aspects of the Marketing Plan which are set forth as responsibilities of the Municipality in the Marketing Plan. The Marketing Plan must comply with the Regulations and Guidelines and with all other applicable statutes, regulations and executive orders, and DHCD directives reflecting the agreement between DHCD and the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development in the case of NAACP, Boston Chapter v. Kemp. If the Project is located in RA Page 5 Sept. 2, 2016 the Boston-Cambridge-Quincy, MA-NH MSA, the Project Sponsor must list all Low and Moderate Income Units with the Boston Fair Housing Commission’s MetroList (Metropolitan Housing Opportunity Clearing Center); other requirements for listing of units are specified in the Guidelines. All costs of carrying out the Marketing Plan shall be paid by the Project Sponsor. (b) The Project Sponsor may use in-house staff to draft and/or implement the Marketing Plan, provided that such staff meets the qualifications described in the Guidelines. The Project Sponsor may contract for such services provided that any such contractor must be experienced and qualified under the standards set forth in the Guidelines. A failure to comply with the Marketing Plan by the Project Sponsor or by the Municipality shall be deemed to be a default of this Agreement. The Project Sponsor agrees to maintain for at least five years following the sale of the last Low and Moderate Income Unit, a record of all newspaper ads, outreach letters, translations, leaflets, and any other outreach efforts (collectively “Marketing Documentation”) as described in the Marketing Plan as approved by DHCD which may be inspected at any time by DHCD. All Marketing Documentation must be approved by DHCD prior to its use by the Project Sponsor or the Municipality. The Project Sponsor and the Municipality agree that if at any time prior to or during the process of marketing the Low and Moderate Income Units, DHCD determines that the Project Sponsor, or the Municipality with respect to aspects of the Marketing Plan that the Municipality has agreed to be responsible for, has not adequately complied with the approved Marketing Plan, that the Project Sponsor or Municipality as the case may be, shall conduct such additional outreach or marketing efforts as shall be determined by DHCD. 6. Neither the Project Sponsor nor the Municipality shall discriminate on the basis of race, religion, color, sex, sexual orientation, familial status, age, disability, marital status, national origin, genetic information, ancestry, children, receipt of public assistance, or any other basis prohibited by law in the selection of buyers for the Units; and the Project Sponsor shall not so discriminate in connection with the employment or application for employment of persons for the construction, operation or management of the Project. 7. (a) The Project Sponsor agrees to comply and to cause the Project to comply with all requirements of the Regulations and Guidelines and all other applicable laws, rules, regulations, and executive orders. DHCD and the Chief Executive Officer of the municipality shall have access during normal business hours to all books and records of the Project Sponsor and the Project in order to monitor the Project Sponsor's compliance with the terms of this Agreement. (b) Throughout the term of this Agreement, the Chief Executive Officer shall annually certify in writing to DHCD that each of the Low and Moderate Income Units continues to be occupied by a person who was an Eligible Purchaser at the time of purchase; that any Low and Moderate Income Units which have been resold during the year have been resold in compliance with all of the terms and provisions of the Deed Rider then in effect with respect to each such Low and Moderate Income Unit, and in compliance with the Regulations and Guidelines and this Agreement; and that the Project and the Low and Moderate Income Units have otherwise been maintained in a manner consistent with the Regulations and Guidelines, this Agreement, and the Deed Rider then in effect with respect to each Low and Moderate Income Unit. 8. Upon execution, the Project Sponsor shall immediately cause this Agreement and any amendments hereto to be recorded/filed with the Registry, and the Project Sponsor shall pay RA Page 6 Sept. 2, 2016 all fees and charges incurred in connection therewith. Upon recording or filing, as applicable, the Project Sponsor shall immediately transmit to DHCD and the Municipality evidence of such recording or filing including the date and instrument, book and page or registration number of the Agreement. 9. The Project Sponsor hereby represents, covenants and warrants as follows: (a) The Project Sponsor (i) is a non-profit corporation, duly organized under the laws of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, and is qualified to transact business under the laws of this State, (ii) has the power and authority to own its properties and assets and to carry on its business as now being conducted, and (iii) has the full legal right, power and authority to execute and deliver this Agreement. (b) The execution and performance of this Agreement by the Project Sponsor (i) will not violate or, as applicable, has not violated any provision of law, rule or regulation, or any order of any court or other agency or governmental body, and (ii) will not violate or, as applicable, has not violated any provision of any indenture, agreement, mortgage, mortgage note, or other instrument to which the Project Sponsor is a party or by which it or the Project is bound, and (iii) will not result in the creation or imposition of any prohibited encumbrance of any nature. (c) The Project Sponsor will, at the time of execution and delivery of this Agreement, have good and marketable title to the premises constituting the Project free and clear of any lien or encumbrance (subject to encumbrances created pursuant to this Agreement, any loan documents relating to the Project the terms of which are approved by DHCD, or other permitted encumbrances, including mortgages referred in paragraph 10, below). (d) There is no action, suit or proceeding at law or in equity or by or before any governmental instrumentality or other agency now pending, or, to the knowledge of the Project Sponsor, threatened against or affecting it, or any of its properties or rights, which, if adversely determined, would materially impair its right to carry on business substantially as now conducted (and as now contemplated by this Agreement) or would materially or adversely affect its financial condition. 10. (a) Except for sales of Low and Moderate Income Units to Eligible Purchasers and sales of other Units to unit owners in the ordinary course of business as permitted by the terms of this Agreement, the Project Sponsor will not sell, transfer, lease, or exchange the Project or any portion thereof or interest therein (collectively, a “Sale”) or (except as permitted under Section (d) below) mortgage the Property without the prior written consent of DHCD and the Municipality. (b) A request for consent to a Sale shall include: -A signed agreement stating that the transferee will assume in full the Project Sponsor’s obligations and duties under this Agreement, together with a certification by the attorney or title company that it will be held in escrow and, in the case of any transfer other than a transfer of Beneficial Interests, recorded in the Registry of Deeds with the deed and/or other recorded documents effecting the Sale; RA Page 7 Sept. 2, 2016 -The name of the proposed transferee and any other entity controlled by or controlling or under common control with the transferee, and names of any affordable housing developments in the Commonwealth owned by such entities; -A certification from the Municipality that the Project is in compliance with the affordability requirements of this Agreement. (c)Consent to the proposed Sale shall be deemed to be given unless DHCD or the Municipality notifies the Project Sponsor within thirty (days) after receipt of the request that either -The package requesting consent is incomplete, or -The proposed transferee (or any entity controlled by or controlling or under common control with the proposed transferee) has a documented history of serious or repeated failures to abide by agreements of affordable housing funding or regulatory agencies of the Commonwealth or the federal government or is currently in violation of any agreements with such agencies beyond the time permitted to cure the violation, or -The Project is not being operated in compliance with the affordability requirements of this Agreement at the time of the proposed Sale. (d)The Project Sponsor shall provide DHCD and the Municipality with thirty (30) day’s prior written notice of the following: (i) any change, substitution or withdrawal of any general partner, manager, or agent of the Project Sponsor; or (ii) the conveyance, assignment, transfer, or relinquishment of a majority of the Beneficial Interests (herein defined) in the Project Sponsor (except for such a conveyance, assignment, transfer or relinquishment among holders of Beneficial Interests as of the date of this Agreement); or (iii) the sale, mortgage, conveyance, transfer, ground lease, or exchange of the Project Sponsor’s interest in the Project or any party of the Project. For purposes hereof, the term “Beneficial Interest” shall mean: (i) with respect to a partnership, any partnership interests or other rights to receive income, losses, or a return on equity contributions made to such partnership; (ii) with respect to a limited liability company, any interests as a member of such company or other rights to receive income, losses, or a return on equity contributions made to such company; or (iii) with respect to a company or corporation, any interests as an officer, board member or stockholder of such company or corporation to receive income, losses, or a return on equity contributions made to such company or corporation. Notwithstanding the above, DHCD’s consent under this Section 10 shall not be required with respect to the grant by the Project Sponsor of any mortgage or other security interest in or RA Page 8 Sept. 2, 2016 with respect to the Project to a state or national bank, state or federal savings and loan association, cooperative bank, mortgage company, trust company, insurance company or other institutional lender made at no greater than the prevailing rate of interest or any exercise by any such mortgagee of any of its rights and remedies (including without limitation, by foreclosure or by taking title to the Project by deed in lieu of foreclosure), subject, however to the provisions of Section 14 hereof. The Project Sponsor hereby agrees that it shall provide copies of any and all written notices received by the Project Sponsor from a mortgagee exercising or threatening to exercise its foreclosure rights under the mortgage. 11. Until such time as decisions regarding repair of damage due to fire or other casualty, or restoration after taking by eminent domain, shall be made by a condominium association or trust not controlled by the Project Sponsor, (or if the Project consists of detached dwellings, by homebuyers) Project Sponsor agrees that if the Project, or any part thereof, shall be damaged or destroyed or shall be condemned or acquired for public use, the Project Sponsor will use its best efforts to repair and restore the Project to substantially the same condition as existed prior to the event causing such damage or destruction, or to relieve the condemnation, and thereafter to operate the Project in accordance with the terms of this Agreement, subject to the approval of the Project's lenders, which lenders have been approved by DHCD and the Municipality. 12. This Agreement shall be governed by the laws of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. Any amendments to this Agreement must be in writing and executed by all of the parties hereto. The invalidity of any clause, part, or provision of this Agreement shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions hereof. 13. All notices to be given pursuant to this Agreement shall be in writing and shall be deemed given when delivered by hand or when mailed by certified or registered mail, postage prepaid, return receipt requested, to the parties hereto at the addresses set forth below, or to such other place as a party may from time to time designate by written notice: DHCD: Department of Housing and Community Development Attention: Local Initiative Program Director 100 Cambridge St., Suite 300 Boston, MA 02114 Municipality: Town of Brewster Attention: Town Administrator Brewster Town Hall 2198 Main Street Brewster, MA 02631 Project Sponsor: Habitat for Humanity of Cape Cod, Inc. Attention: President 411 Main Street (Rte. 6A), Suite 6 Yarmouth Port, MA 02675 RA Page 9 Sept. 2, 2016 14. (a) This Agreement and all of the covenants, agreements and restrictions contained herein shall be deemed to be an “other restriction held by a governmental body” as set forth in Section 26 and an affordable housing restriction as that term is defined in G.L. c. 184, § 31 and as that term is used in G.L. c.184, § 26, 31, 32 and 33. This Agreement shall bind, and the benefits shall inure to, respectively, the Project Sponsor and its successors and assigns, and DHCD and its successors and assigns and the Municipality and its successors and assigns. DHCD has determined that the acquiring of such affordable housing restriction is in the public interest. The term of this Agreement shall be perpetual, provided however, that DHCD shall have the right to withdraw from this Agreement, as provided in Section 16, if (a) at any time hereafter there is no Low and Moderate Income Unit at the Project which is then subject to a Deed Rider containing the Resale Restrictions, and there is no Low and Moderate Income Unit at the Project which is owned by the Municipality or DHCD as provided in Section 4 hereof; or (b) if a Comprehensive Permit is not granted to the Project Sponsor for the Project by either the Municipality's Board of Appeals (as that term is defined in the Regulations) or by the Housing Appeals Committee (as that term is used in the Act) within a period of eighteen months from the date of execution of this Agreement; or (c) if at any time the Comprehensive Permit is revoked and all applicable appeal periods with respect to such revocation have expired. The rights and restrictions contained in this Agreement shall not lapse if the Project is acquired through foreclosure or deed in lieu of foreclosure or similar action, and the provisions hereof shall continue to run with and bind the Project. (b) The Project Sponsor intends, declares and covenants on behalf of itself and its successors and assigns (i) that this Agreement and the covenants, agreements and restrictions contained herein shall be and are covenants running with the land, encumbering the Project for the term of this Agreement, and are binding upon the Project Sponsor's successors in title, (ii) are not merely personal covenants of the Project Sponsor, and (iii) shall bind the Project Sponsor, its successors and assigns and endure to the benefit of DHCD and its successors and assigns for the term of the Agreement. Project Sponsor hereby agrees that any and all requirements of the laws of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts to be satisfied in order for the provisions of this Agreement to constitute restrictions and covenants running with the land shall be deemed to be satisfied in full and that any requirements of privity of estate are also deemed to be satisfied in full. (c) The Resale Restrictions contained in each of the Deed Riders which are to encumber each of the Low and Moderate Income Units at the Project pursuant to the requirements of this Agreement are an “other restriction held by a governmental body” as set forth in G.L. c. 184, § 26 and shall also constitute an affordable housing restriction as that term is defined in G.L. c. 184, §31 and as that term is used in G.L. c. 184, §§26, 31, 32, and 33. Such Resale Restrictions shall be for the benefit of both DHCD and the Municipality and both DHCD and the Municipality shall be deemed to be the holder of the affordable housing restriction created by the Resale Restrictions in each of the Deed Riders. DHCD has determined that the acquiring of such affordable housing restriction is in the public interest. To the extent that the Municipality is the holder of the Resale Restrictions to be contained in each of the Deed Riders, the Director of DHCD by the execution of this Agreement hereby approves such Resale Restrictions in each of the Deed Riders for the Low and Moderate Income Units of the Project as required by the provisions of G.L. c. 184, §32. 15. The Project Sponsor and the Municipality each agree to submit any information, documents, or certifications requested by DHCD which DHCD shall deem necessary or RA Page 10 Sept. 2, 2016 appropriate to evidence the continuing compliance of the Project Sponsor and the Municipality with the terms of this Agreement. 16. (a) The Project Sponsor and the Municipality each covenant and agree to give DHCD written notice of any default, violation or breach of the obligations of the Project Sponsor or the Municipality hereunder, (with a copy to the other party to this Agreement) within seven (7) days of first discovering such default, violation or breach (a “Default Notice”). If DHCD becomes aware of a default, violation, or breach of obligations of the Project Sponsor or the Municipality hereunder without receiving a Default Notice from Project Sponsor or the Municipality, DHCD shall give a notice of such default, breach or violation to the offending party (with a copy to the other party to this Agreement) (the “DHCD Default Notice”). If any such default, violation, or breach is not cured to the satisfaction of DHCD within thirty (30) days after the giving of the Default notice by the Project Sponsor or the Municipality, or if no Default Notice is given, then within thirty (30) days after the giving of the DHCD Default Notice, then at DHCD's option, and without further notice, DHCD may withdraw from this Agreement and record a notice of DHCD’s withdrawal with the Registry of Deeds, or DHCD may apply to any state or federal court for specific performance of this Agreement, or DHCD may exercise any other remedy at law or in equity or take any other action as may be necessary or desirable to correct non-compliance with this Agreement. (b) Whether the Low and Moderate Income Units will continue to be included in the Subsidized Housing Inventory maintained by DHCD for purposes of the Act shall be determined solely by DHCD according to the rules and regulations then in effect. If DHCD elects to withdraw from this Agreement as the result of a breach, violation, or default hereof, which breach, violation, or default continues beyond the cure period set forth in this Section 16(a), then the Low and Moderate Income Units and any other Units at the Project which have been included in the Subsidized Housing Inventory shall from the date of such termination no longer be deemed SHI Eligible Housing for the purposes of the Act and shall be deleted from the Subsidized Housing Inventory. The foregoing sentence shall not apply to Low and Moderate Income Units that have been conveyed in compliance and remain in compliance with Section 3 of this Agreement. Notwithstanding the foregoing, this Agreement shall continue to be a binding and effective permanent affordable housing agreement under G.L. c. 184, §§31-33 between the Project Sponsor and the Municipality, and the covenants and restrictions herein shall continue to run with the Property in perpetuity. The Municipality shall have the same rights as DHCD hereunder, and any notices to be given to and/or approvals to be obtained from DCHD by the Project Sponsor shall be given to and obtained from the Municipality. (c) In the event DHCD and/or the Municipality brings an action to enforce this Agreement and prevails in any such action, DHCD and Municipality shall each be entitled to recover from the Project Sponsor all of DHCD’s and/or the Municipality’s reasonable costs of an action for such enforcement of this Agreement, including reasonable attorneys’ fees. (d) The Project Sponsor hereby grants to DHCD, the Municipality, or its or their designee the right to enter upon the Property for the purpose of enforcing the terms of this Agreement or to prevent, remedy or abate any violation of this Agreement. 17. The Project Sponsor represents and warrants that it has obtained the consent of all existing mortgagees of the Project to the execution and recording of this Agreement and to the RA Page 11 Sept. 2, 2016 terms and conditions hereof and that all such mortgagees have executed the Consent and Subordination of Mortgage to Regulatory Agreement attached hereto and made a part hereof. 18. DHCD may delegate to the Municipality any of its oversight and enforcement responsibilities under this Agreement, with the agreement of the Municipality, by providing written notice of such delegation to the Project Sponsor and the Municipality. 19. When executed by DHCD, this Agreement shall constitute Final Approval of the Project as described in 760 CMR 56.04(7). DHCD hereby reaffirms and incorporates by reference in this Agreement each of the findings with respect to project eligibility required by 760 CMR 56.04(1) made in the Site Eligibility Letter for the Project dated June 10, 2021. [REMAINDER OF PAGE LEFT INTENTIONALLY BLANK] RA Page 12 Sept. 2, 2016 Executed as a sealed instrument as of the date first above written. PROJECT SPONSOR By:_________________________________ Wendy Cullinan Its President DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT By:_________________________________ Its: MUNICIPALITY, Town of Brewster By:_________________________________ Its: Select Board Chair, David Whitney Attachments: Exhibit A - Legal Property Description Exhibit B - Prices & Location of Low & Moderate Income Units Exhibit C - Form of Deed Rider Consent forms signed by any and all mortgagees whose mortgages are recorded prior to this Regulatory Agreement must be attached to this Regulatory Agreement. © DHCD When used in the Local Initiative Program, this form may not be modified without the written approval of the Department of Housing and Community Development. RA Page 13 Sept. 2, 2016 COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS COUNTY OF , ss. On this _______ day of ________________, 20__, before me, the undersigned notary public, personally appeared _____________________________, proved to me through satisfactory evidence of identification, which were _______________________, to be the person whose name is signed on the preceding document, as _______________________ of the _________________ [Project Sponsor], and acknowledged to me that he/she signed it voluntarily for its stated purpose. __________________________________________ Notary Public My Commission Expires: COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS COUNTY OF SUFFOLK, ss. On this _______ day of ________________, 20__, before me, the undersigned notary public, personally appeared _____________________________________, proved to me through satisfactory evidence of identification, which were _______________________________, to be the person whose name is signed on the preceding document, as _______________________ for the Commonwealth of Massachusetts acting by and through the Department of Housing and Community Development, and acknowledged to me that he/she signed it voluntarily for its stated purpose. __________________________________________ Notary Public My Commission Expires: RA Page 14 Sept. 2, 2016 COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS COUNTY OF ,ss. _______________, 20__ On this _______ day of ________________, 20__, before me, the undersigned notary public, personally appeared _____________________________________, proved to me through satisfactory evidence of identification, which were _______________________________, to be the person whose name is signed on the preceding document, as _______________________ for the City/Town of _______________________, and acknowledged to me that he/she signed it voluntarily for its stated purpose. __________________________________________ Notary Public Print Name: My Commission Expires: RA Page 15 Sept. 2, 2016 CONSENT AND SUBORDINATION OF MORTGAGE TO REGULATORY AGREEMENT Reference is hereby made to a certain Mortgage dated ________ given by ___________ to ____________, recorded with the ________ Registry of Deeds at Book ______, Page ____ (“Mortgage”). The Undersigned, present holder of said Mortgage, hereby recognizes and consents to the execution and recording of this Agreement and agrees that the aforesaid Mortgage shall be subject and subordinate to the provisions of this Agreement, to the same extent as if said Mortgage had been registered subsequent thereto. The Undersigned further agrees that in the event of any foreclosure or exercise of remedies under said Mortgage it shall comply with the terms and conditions hereof. [NAME OF LENDER] By:_______________________________________ Its: (If the Project has more than one mortgagee, add additional consent forms.) COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS COUNTY OF_______________, ss. ____________, 20___ On this _______ day of ________________, 20__, before me, the undersigned notary public, personally appeared _____________________________________, proved to me through satisfactory evidence of identification, which were _______________________________, to be the person whose name is signed on the preceding document, as _______________________ of _______________________ Bank, and acknowledged to me that he/she signed it voluntarily for its stated purpose. __________________________________________ Notary Public Print Name: My Commission Expires: RA Page 16 Sept. 2, 2016 EXHIBIT A Re: __Red Top Road Community Housing_____________________ (Project name) __Brewster____________________ (City/Town) __Habitat for Humanity of Cape Cod, Inc._____________________ (Developer) Property Description The land with the buildings thereon located in Brewster, Barnstable County, Commonwealth of Massachusetts, commonly known and numbered 26 Red Top Road, more particularly described as follows: Lots A and B on a plan entitled “Definitive Subdivision Plan of Land of 26 Red Top Road, Brewster, MA for Habitat for Humanity of Cape Cod, Inc.”, dated July 26, 2021, by J.M. O’Reilly & Associates, Inc., recorded with the Barnstable Registry of Deeds in Plan Book 694 Page 44. RA Page 17 Sept. 2, 2016 EXHIBIT B Re: _Red Top Road Community Housing______________________ (Project name) _Brewster______________________ (City/Town) _Habitat for Humanity of Cape Cod______________________ (Developer) Maximum Selling Prices, Initial Condominium Fees, and Percentage Interest Assigned to Low and Moderate Income Units Sales Price Condo Fee % Interest One bedroom units $____N/A______$____N/A___________N/A_____ Two bedroom units $___N/A_______$___N/A___________N/A______ Three bedroom units $_169,250_____$____60 HOA ___N/A_______ Four bedroom units $___N/A_______$___N/A__________N/A_______ Location of Low and Moderate Income Units The housing units which are Low and Moderate Income Units are those designated as Lots A and B on: a plan of land entitled “Definitive Subdivision Plan of Land of 26 Red Top Road, Brewster, MA for Habitat for Humanity of Cape Cod, Inc.” recorded with the Barnstable County Registry of Deeds in Book 694, Page 44. floor plans recorded with the Master Deed of the ________________________ recorded with the ____________________ Registry of Deeds in Book ____, Page ____. RA Page 18 Sept. 2, 2016 PAGE Left Blank Rev. 12.4.191 LOCAL INITIATIVE PROGRAM AFFORDABLE HOUSING DEED RIDER For Projects in Which Affordability Restrictions Survive Foreclosure This LOCAL INITIATIVE PROGRAM AFFORDABLE HOUSING DEED RIDER is made part of that certain deed (the "Deed") of certain property (the “Property”) from __________________ ("Grantor") to __________________ ("Owner") dated ____________, 20__. The Property is located in the City/Town of ____________ (the “Municipality”). RECITALS WHEREAS, the Grantor is conveying that certain real property more particularly described in the Deed to the Owner at a consideration which is at or less than the fair market value of the Property; and WHEREAS, the Property is part of a project which was: [check all that are applicable] (i)granted a Comprehensive Permit under Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40B, Sections 20-23, from the Board of Appeals of the Municipality or the Housing Appeals Committee dated ________ and recorded/filed with the _____________ Registry of Deeds/Registry District of Land Court (the “Registry”) in Book __________, Page _______/Document No. _________ (the “Comprehensive Permit”); (ii)subject to a Regulatory Agreement among ________________ (the “Developer”), [ ] Massachusetts Housing Finance Agency (“MassHousing”), [X] the Massachusetts Department of Housing and Community Development] (“DHCD”), and [X] the Municipality; dated _________________ and recorded with the Registry in Book __________, Page ______ (the “Regulatory Agreement”); (iii)√ subsidized by the federal or state government under the Local Initiative Program, a program to assist construction of low or moderate income housing (the “Program”); and WHEREAS, pursuant to the Program, eligible purchasers such as the Owner are given the opportunity to purchase residential property at or less than its fair market value if the purchaser agrees to certain use and transfer restrictions, including an agreement to occupy the property as a principal residence and to convey the property for an amount not greater than a maximum resale price, all as more fully provided herein; and WHEREAS, DHCD and the City/Town of ___________ (singly, or if more than one entity is listed, collectively, the “Monitoring Agent”) is obligated by the Program or has been retained to monitor compliance with and to enforce the terms of this Deed Rider, and eligible purchasers such as the Owner may be required to pay to the Monitoring Agent, or its successor, a small percentage EXHIBIT C Rev. 12.4.19 2 of the resale price upon the Owner’s conveyance of the Property, as set out in the Regulatory Agreement and as more fully provided herein; and WHEREAS, the rights and restrictions granted herein to the Monitoring Agent and the Municipality serve the public’s interest in the creation and retention of affordable housing for persons and households of low and moderate income and in the restricting of the resale price of property in order to assure its affordability by future low and moderate income purchasers. NOW, THEREFORE, as further consideration for the conveyance of the Property at or less than fair market value, the Grantor and the Owner, including his/her/their heirs, successors and assigns, hereby agree that the Property shall be subject to the following rights and restrictions which are imposed for the benefit of, and shall be enforceable by, the Municipality and the Monitoring Agent, and, if DHCD is a party to the Regulatory Agreement and is not the Monitoring Agent, by DHCD. 1. Definitions. In this Deed Rider, in addition to the terms defined above, the following words and phrases shall have the following meanings: Affordable Housing Fund means a fund established by the Municipality for the purpose of reducing the cost of housing for Eligible Purchasers or for the purpose of encouraging, creating, or subsidizing the construction or rehabilitation of housing for Eligible Purchasers or, if no such fund exists, a fund established by the Municipality pursuant to Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 44 Section 53A, et seq. Applicable Foreclosure Price shall have the meaning set forth in Section 7(b) hereof. Appropriate Size Household means a household containing a number of members equal to the number of bedrooms in the Property plus one. Approved Capital Improvements means the documented commercially reasonable cost of extraordinary capital improvements made to the Property by the Owner; provided that the Monitoring Agent shall have given written authorization for incurring such cost prior to the cost being incurred and that the original cost of such improvements shall be discounted over the course of their useful life. Area means the Primary Metropolitan Statistical Area or non-metropolitan area that includes the Municipality, as determined by HUD, which in this case is the _______________ MSA/HMFA. Area Median Income means the most recently published median income for the Area adjusted for household size as determined by HUD. If HUD discontinues publication of Area Median Income, the income statistics used by MassHousing for its low and moderate income housing programs shall apply. Base Income Number means the Area Median Income for a four (4)-person household. Currently, the AMI for the ___________________ MSA/HMFA is $__________. Rev. 12.4.19 3 Chief Executive Officer shall mean the Mayor in a city or the Board of Selectmen in a town unless some other municipal office is designated to be the chief executive officer under the provisions of a local charter. Closing shall have the meaning set forth in Section 5(b) hereof. Compliance Certificate shall have the meaning set forth in Section 6(a) hereof. Conveyance Notice shall have the meaning set forth in Section 4(a) hereof. Eligible Purchaser means an individual or household earning no more than eighty percent (80%) of Area Median Income (or, if checked [ ] _______________ percent (___%) of Area Median Income, as required by the Program) and owning assets not in excess of the limit set forth in the Program Guidelines. To be considered an Eligible Purchaser, the individual or household must intend to occupy and thereafter must occupy the Property as his, her or their principal residence and must provide to the Monitoring Agent such certifications as to income, assets and residency as the Monitoring Agent may require to determine eligibility as an Eligible Purchaser. An Eligible Purchaser shall be a First-Time Homebuyer if required by the Program and as specified in the Regulatory Agreement. First-Time Homebuyer means an individual or household, of which no household member has had an ownership interest in a principal residence at any time during the three (3)-year period prior to the date of qualification as an Eligible Purchaser, except that (i) any individual who is a displaced homemaker (as may be defined by DHCD) (ii) and any individual age 55 or over (applying for age 55 or over housing) shall not be excluded from consideration as a First-Time Homebuyer under this definition on the basis that the individual, owned a home or had an ownership interest in a principal residence at any time during the three (3)-year period. Foreclosure Notice shall have the meaning set forth in Section 7(a) hereof. HUD means the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development. Ineligible Purchaser means an individual or household not meeting the requirements to be eligible as an Eligible Purchaser. Maximum Resale Price means the sum of (i) the Base Income Number (at the time of resale) multiplied by the Resale Price Multiplier, plus (ii) the Resale Fee and any necessary marketing expenses (including broker’s fees) as may have been approved by the Monitoring Agent, plus (iii) Approved Capital Improvements, if any (the original cost of which shall have been discounted over time, as calculated by the Monitoring Agent); provided that in no event shall the Maximum Resale Price be greater than the purchase price for which a credit-worthy Eligible Purchaser earning seventy percent (70%) of the Area Median Income (or, if checked [ ] _______________ percent (___%) of Area Median Income, as required by the Program) of Area Median Income, as required by the Program) for an Appropriate Size Household could obtain mortgage financing (as such purchase price is determined by the Monitoring Agent using the same methodology then used by DHCD for its Local Initiative Program or similar comprehensive permit program); and further Rev. 12.4.19 4 provided that the Maximum Resale Price shall not be less than the purchase price paid for the Property by the Owner unless the Owner agrees to accept a lesser price. Monitoring Services Agreement means any Monitoring Services Agreement for monitoring and enforcement of this Deed Rider among some or all of the Developer, the Monitoring Agent, the Municipality, MassHousing and DHCD. Mortgage Satisfaction Amount shall have the meaning set forth in Section 7(b) hereof. Mortgagee shall have the meaning set forth in Section 7(a) hereof. Program Guidelines means the regulations and/or guidelines issued for the applicable Program and controlling its operations, as amended from time to time. Resale Fee means a fee of Two Percent (2%) of the Base Income Number (at the time of resale) multiplied by the Resale Price Multiplier, to be paid to the Monitoring Agent as compensation for monitoring and enforcing compliance with the terms of this Deed Rider, including the supervision of the resale process. Resale Price Certificate means the certificate issued as may be specified in the Regulatory Agreement and recorded with the first deed of the Property from the Developer, or the subsequent certificate (if any) issued as may be specified in the Regulatory Agreement, which sets forth the Resale Price Multiplier to be applied on the Owner’s sale of the Property, as provided herein, for so long as the restrictions set forth herein continue. In the absence of contrary specification in the Regulatory Agreement the Monitoring Agent shall issue the certificate. Resale Price Multiplier means the number calculated by dividing the Property’s initial sale price by the Base Income Number at the time of the initial sale from the Developer to the first Eligible Purchaser. The Resale Price Multiplier will be multiplied by the Base Income Number at the time of the Owner’s resale of the Property to determine the Maximum Resale Price on such conveyance subject to adjustment for the Resale Fee, marketing expenses and Approved Capital Improvements. In the event that the purchase price paid for the Property by the Owner includes such an adjustment a new Resale Price Multiplier will be recalculated by the Monitoring Agent by dividing the purchase price so paid by the Base Income Number at the time of such purchase, and a new Resale Price Certificate will be issued and recorded reflecting the new Resale Price Multiplier. A Resale Price Multiplier of _____ is hereby assigned to the Property. Term means in perpetuity, unless earlier terminated by (i) the termination of the term of affordability set forth in the Regulatory Agreement or Comprehensive Permit, whichever is longer; or (ii) the recording of a Compliance Certificate and a new Deed Rider executed by the purchaser in form and substance substantially identical to this Deed Rider establishing a new term. 2. Owner-Occupancy/Principal Residence. The Property shall be occupied and used by the Owner’s household exclusively as his, her or their principal residence. Any use of the Property or activity thereon which is inconsistent with such exclusive residential use is expressly prohibited. Rev. 12.4.19 5 3. Restrictions Against Leasing, Refinancing and Junior Encumbrances. The Property shall not be leased, rented, refinanced, encumbered (voluntarily or otherwise) or mortgaged without the prior written consent of the Monitoring Agent; provided that this provision shall not apply to a first mortgage granted on the date hereof in connection with this conveyance from Grantor to Owner securing indebtedness not greater than one hundred percent (100%) of the purchase price. Any rents, profits, or proceeds from any transaction described in the preceding sentence which transaction has not received the requisite written consent of the Monitoring Agent shall be paid upon demand by Owner to the Municipality for deposit to its Affordable Housing Fund. The Monitoring Agent or Municipality may institute proceedings to recover such rents, profits or proceeds, and costs of collection, including attorneys’ fees. Upon recovery, after payment of costs, the balance shall be paid to the Municipality for deposit to its Affordable Housing Fund. In the event that the Monitoring Agent consents for good cause to any such lease, refinancing, encumbrance or mortgage, it shall be a condition to such consent that all rents, profits or proceeds from such transaction, which exceed the actual carrying costs of the Property as determined by the Monitoring Agent, shall be paid to the Municipality for deposit to its Affordable Housing Fund. 4. Options to Purchase. (a) When the Owner or any successor in title to the Owner shall desire to sell, dispose of or otherwise convey the Property, or any portion thereof, the Owner shall notify the Monitoring Agent and the Municipality in writing of the Owner’s intention to so convey the Property (the "Conveyance Notice"). Upon receipt of the Conveyance Notice, the Monitoring Agent shall (i) calculate the Maximum Resale Price which the Owner may receive on the sale of the Property based upon the Base Income Number in effect as of the date of the Conveyance Notice and the Resale Price Multiplier set forth in the most recently recorded Resale Price Certificate together with permissible adjustments for the Resale Fee, marketing expenses and Approved Capital Improvements (as discounted), and (ii) promptly begin marketing efforts. The Owner shall fully cooperate with the Monitoring Agent’s efforts to locate an Eligible Purchaser and, if so requested by the Monitoring Agent, shall hire a broker selected by the Monitoring Agent to assist in locating an Eligible Purchaser ready, willing and able to purchase the Property at the Maximum Resale Price after entering a purchase and sale agreement. Pursuant to such agreement, sale to the Eligible Purchaser at the Maximum Resale Price shall occur within ninety (90) days after the Monitoring Agent receives the Conveyance Notice or such further time as reasonably requested to arrange for details of closing. If the Owner fails to cooperate in such resale efforts, including a failure to agree to reasonable terms in the purchase and sale agreement, the Monitoring Agent may extend the 90-day period for a period commensurate with the time the lack of cooperation continues, as determined by the Monitoring Agent in its reasonable discretion. In such event, the Monitoring Agent shall give Owner written notice of the lack of cooperation and the length of the extension added to the 90-day period. (b) The Monitoring Agent shall ensure that diligent marketing efforts are made to locate an Eligible Purchaser ready, willing and able to purchase the Property at the Maximum Resale Price within the time period provided in subsection (a) above and to enter the requisite purchase and sale agreement. If more than one Eligible Purchaser is located, the Monitoring Agent shall conduct a lottery or other like procedure to determine which Eligible Purchaser shall be Rev. 12.4.19 6 entitled to enter a purchase and sale agreement with Owner and to purchase the Property. Preference shall be given to Appropriate Size Households. The procedure for marketing and selecting an Eligible Purchaser shall be approved as provided in the Regulatory Agreement and any applicable Program Guidelines. If an Eligible Purchaser is located within ninety (90) days after receipt of the Conveyance Notice, but such Eligible Purchaser proves unable to secure mortgage financing so as to be able to complete the purchase of the Property pursuant to the purchase and sale agreement, following written notice to Owner within the 90-day period the Monitoring Agent shall have an additional sixty (60) days to locate another Eligible Purchaser who will enter a purchase and sale agreement and purchase the Property by the end of such sixty (60)- day period or such further time as reasonably requested to carry out the purchase and sale agreement. (c) In lieu of sale to an Eligible Purchaser, the Monitoring Agent or the Municipality or designee shall also have the right to purchase the Property at the Maximum Resale Price, in which event the purchase and sale agreement shall be entered, and the purchase shall occur within ninety (90) days after receipt of the Conveyance Notice or, within the additional sixty (60)-day period specified in subsection (b) above, or such further time as reasonably requested to carry out the purchase and sale agreement. Any lack of cooperation by Owner in measures reasonably necessary to effect the sale shall extend the 90-day period by the length of the delay caused by such lack of cooperation. The Monitoring Agent shall promptly give Owner written notice of the lack of cooperation and the length of the extension added to the 90-day period. In the event of such a sale to the Monitoring Agent or Municipality or designee, the Property shall remain subject to this Deed Rider and shall thereafter be sold or rented to an Eligible Purchaser as may be more particularly set forth in the Regulatory Agreement. (d) If an Eligible Purchaser fails to purchase the Property within the 90-day period (or such further time determined as provided herein) after receipt of the Conveyance Notice, and the Monitoring Agent or Municipality or designee does not purchase the Property during said period, then the Owner may convey the Property to an Ineligible Purchaser no earlier than thirty (30) days after the end of said period at the Maximum Resale Price, but subject to all rights and restrictions contained herein; provided that the Property shall be conveyed subject to a Deed Rider identical in form and substance to this Deed Rider which the Owner agrees to execute, to secure execution by the Ineligible Purchaser and to record with the Deed; and further provided that, if more than one Ineligible Purchaser is ready, willing and able to purchase the Property the Owner will give preference and enter a purchase and sale agreement with any individuals or households identified by the Monitoring Agent as an Appropriate Size Household earning more than eighty percent (80%) but less than one hundred twenty percent (120%) of the Area Median Income. (e) The priority for exercising the options to purchase contained in this Section 4 shall be as follows: (i) an Eligible Purchaser located and selected by the Monitoring Agent, as provided in subsection (b) above, (ii) the Municipality or its designee, as provided in subsection (c) above, and (iii) an Ineligible Purchaser, as provided in subsection (d) above. (f) Nothing in this Deed Rider or the Regulatory Agreement constitutes a promise, commitment or guarantee by DHCD, MassHousing, the Municipality or the Monitoring Rev. 12.4.19 7 Agent that upon resale the Owner shall actually receive the Maximum Resale Price for the Property or any other price for the Property. (g) The holder of a mortgage on the Property is not obligated to forbear from exercising the rights and remedies under its mortgage, at law or in equity, after delivery of the Conveyance Notice. 5. Delivery of Deed. (a) In connection with any conveyance pursuant to an option to purchase as set forth in Section 4 above, the Property shall be conveyed by the Owner to the selected purchaser by a good and sufficient quitclaim deed conveying a good and clear record and marketable title to the Property free from all encumbrances except (i) such taxes for the then current year as are not due and payable on the date of delivery of the deed, (ii) any lien for municipal betterments assessed after the date of the Conveyance Notice, (iii) provisions of local building and zoning laws, (iv) all easements, restrictions, covenants and agreements of record specified in the deed from the Owner to the selected purchaser, (v) such additional easements, restrictions, covenants and agreements of record as the selected purchaser consents to, such consent not to be unreasonably withheld or delayed, (vi) the Regulatory Agreement, and (vii), except as otherwise provided in the Compliance Certificate, a Deed Rider identical in form and substance to this Deed Rider which the Owner hereby agrees to execute, to secure execution by the selected purchaser, and to record with the deed. Said deed shall clearly state that it is made subject to the Deed Rider which is made part of the deed. Failure to comply with the preceding sentence shall not affect the validity of the conveyance from the Owner to the selected purchaser or the enforceability of the restrictions herein. (b) Said deed, including the approved Deed Rider, shall be delivered and the purchase price paid (the "Closing") at the Registry, or at the option of the selected purchaser, exercised by written notice to the Owner at least five (5) days prior to the delivery of the deed, at such other place as the selected purchaser may designate in said notice. The Closing shall occur at such time and on such date as shall be specified in a written notice from the selected purchaser to the Owner, which date shall be at least five (5) days after the date on which such notice is given, and no later than the end of the time period specified in Section 4(a) above. (c) To enable Owner to make conveyance as herein provided, Owner may, if Owner so desires at the time of delivery of the deed, use the purchase money or any portion thereof to clear the title of any or all encumbrances or interests, all instruments with respect thereto to be recorded simultaneously with the delivery of said deed. Nothing contained herein as to the Owner’s obligation to remove defects in title or to make conveyance or to deliver possession of the Property in accordance with the terms hereof, as to use of proceeds to clear title or as to the election of the selected purchaser to take title, nor anything else in this Deed Rider shall be deemed to waive, impair or otherwise affect the priority of the rights herein over matters appearing of record, or occurring, at any time after the recording of this Deed Rider, all such matters so appearing or occurring being subject and subordinate in all events to the rights herein. Rev. 12.4.19 8 (d) Water and sewer charges and taxes for the then current tax period shall be apportioned and fuel value shall be adjusted as of the date of Closing and the net amount thereof shall be added to or deducted from, as the case may be, the purchase price payable by the selected purchaser. (e) Full possession of the Property free from all occupants is to be delivered at the time of the Closing, the Property to be then in the same condition as it is in on the date of the execution of the purchase and sale agreement, reasonable wear and tear only excepted. (f) If Owner shall be unable to give title or to make conveyance as above required, or if any change of condition in the Property not included in the above exception shall occur, then Owner shall be given a reasonable time not to exceed thirty (30) days after the date on which the Closing was to have occurred in which to remove any defect in title or to restore the Property to the condition herein required. The Owner shall use best efforts to remove any such defects in the title, whether voluntary or involuntary, and to restore the Property to the extent permitted by insurance proceeds or condemnation award. The Closing shall occur fifteen (15) days after notice by Owner that such defect has been cured or that the Property has been so restored. The selected purchaser shall have the election, at either the original or any extended time for performance, to accept such title as the Owner can deliver to the Property in its then condition and to pay therefor the purchase price without deduction, in which case the Owner shall convey such title, except that in the event of such conveyance in accordance with the provisions of this clause, if the Property shall have been damaged by fire or casualty insured against or if a portion of the Property shall have been taken by a public authority, then the Owner shall, unless the Owner has previously restored the Property to its former condition, either: (A) pay over or assign to the selected purchaser, on delivery of the deed, all amounts recovered or recoverable on account of such insurance or condemnation award less any amounts reasonably expended by the Owner for any partial restoration, or (B) if a holder of a mortgage on the Property shall not permit the insurance proceeds or the condemnation award or part thereof to be used to restore the Property to its former condition or to be so paid over or assigned, give to the selected purchaser a credit against the purchase price, on delivery of the deed, equal to said amounts so retained by the holder of the said mortgage less any amounts reasonably expended by the Owner for any partial restoration. 6. Resale and Transfer Restrictions. (a) Except as otherwise provided herein, the Property or any interest therein shall not at any time be sold by the Owner, or the Owner’s successors and assigns, and no attempted sale shall be valid, unless the aggregate value of all consideration and payments of every kind given or paid by the selected purchaser of the Property for and in connection with the transfer of such Property, is equal to or less than the Maximum Resale Price for the Property, and unless a certificate (the "Compliance Certificate") is obtained and recorded, signed and acknowledged by Rev. 12.4.19 9 the Monitoring Agent which Compliance Certificate refers to the Property, the Owner, the selected purchaser thereof, and the Maximum Resale Price therefor, and states that the proposed conveyance, sale or transfer of the Property to the selected purchaser is in compliance with the rights, restrictions, covenants and agreements contained in this Deed Rider, and unless there is also recorded a new Deed Rider executed by the selected purchaser, which new Deed Rider is identical in form and substance to this Deed Rider. (b) The Owner, any good faith purchaser of the Property, any lender or other party taking a security interest in such Property and any other third party may rely upon a Compliance Certificate as conclusive evidence that the proposed conveyance, sale or transfer of the Property to the selected purchaser is in compliance with the rights, restrictions, covenants and agreements contained in this Deed Rider, and may record such Compliance Certificate in connection with the conveyance of the Property. (c) Within ten (10) days of the closing of the conveyance of the Property from the Owner to the selected purchaser, the Owner shall deliver to the Monitoring Agent a copy of the Deed of the Property, including the deed rider, together with recording information. Failure of the Owner, or Owner’s successors or assigns to comply with the preceding sentence shall not affect the validity of such conveyance or the enforceability of the restrictions herein. 7. Survival of Restrictions Upon Exercise of Remedies by Mortgagees. (a) The holder of record of any mortgage on the Property (each, a “Mortgagee”) shall notify the Monitoring Agent, the Municipality and any senior Mortgagee(s) in the event of any default for which the Mortgagee intends to commence foreclosure proceedings or similar remedial action pursuant to its mortgage (the “Foreclosure Notice”), which notice shall be sent to the Monitoring Agent and the Municipality as set forth in this Deed Rider, and to the senior Mortgagee(s) as set forth in such senior Mortgagee’s mortgage, not less than one hundred twenty (120) days prior to the foreclosure sale or the acceptance of a deed in lieu of foreclosure. The Owner expressly agrees to the delivery of the Foreclosure Notice and any other communications and disclosures made by the Mortgagee pursuant to this Deed Rider. (b) The Owner grants to the Municipality or its designee the right and option to purchase the Property upon receipt by the Municipality of the Foreclosure Notice. In the event that the Municipality intends to exercise its option, the Municipality or its designee shall purchase the Property within one hundred twenty (120) days of receipt of such notice, at a price equal to the greater of (i) the sum of the outstanding principal balance of the note secured by such foreclosing Mortgagee’s mortgage, together with the outstanding principal balance(s) of any note(s) secured by mortgage(s) senior in priority to such mortgage (but in no event shall the aggregate amount thereof be greater than one hundred percent (100%) of the Maximum Resale Price calculated at the time of the granting of the mortgage) plus all future advances, accrued interest and all reasonable costs and expenses which the foreclosing Mortgagee and any senior Mortgagee(s) are entitled to recover pursuant to the terms of such mortgages (the “Mortgage Satisfaction Amount”), and (ii) the Maximum Resale Price (which for this purpose may be less than the purchase price paid for the Property by the Owner) (the greater of (i) and (ii) above herein referred to as the “Applicable Foreclosure Price”). The Property shall be sold and conveyed in its then-current “as Rev. 12.4.19 1 is, where is” condition, without representation or warranty of any kind, direct or indirect, express or implied, and with the benefit of and subject to all rights, rights of way, restrictions, easements, covenants, liens, improvements, housing code violations, public assessments, any and all unpaid federal or state taxes (subject to any rights of redemption for unpaid federal taxes), municipal liens and any other encumbrances of record then in force and applicable to the Property having priority over such foreclosing Mortgagee’s mortgage, and further subject to a Deed Rider identical in form and substance to this Deed Rider which the Owner hereby agrees to execute, to secure execution by the Municipality or its designee, and to record with the deed, except that (i) during the term of ownership of the Property by the Municipality or its designee the owner-occupancy requirements of Section 2 hereof shall not apply (unless the designee is an Eligible Purchaser), and (ii) the Maximum Resale Price shall be recalculated based on the price paid for the Property by the Municipality or its designee, but not greater than the Applicable Foreclosure Price. Said deed shall clearly state that it is made subject to the Deed Rider which is made part of the deed. Failure to comply with the preceding sentence shall not affect the validity of the conveyance from the Owner to the Municipality or its designee or the enforceability of the restrictions herein. (c) Not earlier than one hundred twenty (120) days following the delivery of the Foreclosure Notice to the Monitoring Agent, the Municipality and any senior Mortgagee(s) pursuant to subsection (a) above, the foreclosing Mortgagee may conduct the foreclosure sale or accept a deed in lieu of foreclosure. The Property shall be sold and conveyed in its then-current “as is, where is” condition, without representation or warranty of any kind, direct or indirect, express or implied, and with the benefit of and subject to all rights, rights of way, restrictions, easements, covenants, liens, improvements, housing code violations, public assessments, any and all unpaid federal or state taxes (subject to any rights of redemption for unpaid federal taxes), municipal liens and any other encumbrances of record then in force and applicable to the Property having priority over the foreclosing Mortgagee’s mortgage, and further subject to a Deed Rider, as set forth below. (d) In the event that the foreclosing Mortgagee conducts a foreclosure sale or other proceeding enforcing its rights under its mortgage and the Property is sold for a price in excess of the greater of the Maximum Resale Price and the Mortgage Satisfaction Amount, such excess shall be paid to the Municipality for its Affordable Housing Fund after (i) a final judicial determination, or (ii) a written agreement of all parties who, as of such date hold (or have been duly authorized to act for other parties who hold) a record interest in the Property, that the Municipality is entitled to such excess. The legal costs of obtaining any such judicial determination or agreement shall be deducted from the excess prior to payment to the Municipality. To the extent that the Owner possesses any interest in any amount which would otherwise be payable to the Municipality under this paragraph, to the fullest extent permissible by law, the Owner hereby assigns its interest in such amount to the Mortgagee for payment to the Municipality. (e) If any Mortgagee shall acquire the Property by reason of foreclosure or upon conveyance of the Property in lieu of foreclosure, which shall include the Federal National Mortgage Association (“Fannie Mae”) when it is assignee of the Mortgagee’s rights after such foreclosure or conveyance, then the rights and restrictions contained herein shall apply to such Mortgagee upon such acquisition of the Property and to any purchaser of the Property from such Mortgagee, and the Property shall be conveyed subject to a Deed Rider identical in form and Rev. 12.4.19 1 substance to this Deed Rider, which the Mortgagee that has so acquired the Property agrees to annex to the deed and to record with the deed, except that (i) during the term of ownership of the Property by such Mortgagee the owner-occupancy requirements of Section 2 hereof shall not apply, (ii) the title covenants required under Section 5 shall not apply only as to a subsequent REO conveyance by Fannie Mae, and (iii) the Maximum Resale Price shall be recalculated based on the price paid for the Property by such Mortgagee at the foreclosure sale, but not greater than the Applicable Foreclosure Price. Said deed shall clearly state that it is made subject to the Deed Rider which is made part of the deed. Failure to comply with the preceding sentence shall not affect the validity of the conveyance to the Mortgagee or the enforceability of the restrictions herein. (f) If any party other than a Mortgagee shall acquire the Property by reason of foreclosure or upon conveyance of the Property in lieu of foreclosure, the Property shall be conveyed subject to a Deed Rider identical in form and substance to this Deed Rider, which the foreclosing Mortgagee agrees to annex to the deed and to record with the deed, except that (i) if the purchaser at such foreclosure sale or assignee of a deed in lieu of foreclosure is an Ineligible Purchaser, then during the term of ownership of the Property by such Ineligible Purchaser, the owner-occupancy requirements of Section 2 hereof shall not apply, and (ii) the Maximum Resale Price shall be recalculated based on the price paid for the Property by such third party purchaser at the foreclosure sale, but not greater than the Applicable Foreclosure Price. Said deed shall clearly state that it is made subject to the Deed Rider which is made part of the deed. Failure to comply with the preceding sentence shall not affect the validity of the conveyance to such third party purchaser or the enforceability of the restrictions herein. (g) Upon satisfaction of the requirements contained in this Section 7, the Monitoring Agent shall issue a Compliance Certificate to the foreclosing Mortgagee which, upon recording in the Registry, may be relied upon as provided in Section 6(b) hereof as conclusive evidence that the conveyance of the Property pursuant to this Section 7 is in compliance with the rights, restrictions, covenants and agreements contained in this Deed Rider. (h) The Owner understands and agrees that nothing in this Deed Rider or the Regulatory Agreement (i) in any way constitutes a promise or guarantee by MassHousing, DHCD, the Municipality or the Monitoring Agent that the Mortgagee shall actually receive the Mortgage Satisfaction Amount, the Maximum Resale Price for the Property or any other price for the Property, or (ii) impairs the rights and remedies of the Mortgagee in the event of a deficiency. (i) If a Foreclosure Notice is delivered after the delivery of a Conveyance Notice as provided in Section 4(a) hereof, the procedures set forth in this Section 7 shall supersede the provisions of Section 4 hereof. 8. Covenants to Run With the Property. (a) This Deed Rider, including all restrictions, rights and covenants contained herein, is an affordable housing restriction as that term is defined in Section 31 of Chapter 184 of the Massachusetts General Laws, having the benefit of Section 32 of such Chapter 184, and is enforceable as such. This Deed Rider has been approved by the Undersecretary of DHCD. Rev. 12.4.19 1 (b) In confirmation thereof the Grantor and the Owner intend, declare and covenant (i) that this Deed Rider, including all restrictions, rights and covenants contained herein, shall be and are covenants running with the land, encumbering the Property for the Term, and are binding upon the Owner and the Owner’s successors in title and assigns, (ii) are not merely personal covenants of the Owner, and (iii) shall enure to the benefit of and be enforceable by the Municipality, the Monitoring Agent and DHCD and their successors and assigns, for the Term. Owner hereby agrees that any and all requirements of the laws of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts have been satisfied in order for the provisions of this Deed Rider to constitute restrictions and covenants running with the land and that any requirements of privity of estate have been satisfied in full. 9. Notice. Any notices, demands or requests that may be given under this Deed Rider shall be sufficiently served if given in writing and delivered by hand or mailed by certified or registered mail, postage prepaid, return receipt requested, to the following entities and parties in interest at the addresses set forth below, or such other addresses as may be specified by any party (or its successor) by such notice. Municipality: Grantor: Owner: Monitoring Agent(s): (1) Director, Local Initiative Program DHCD 100 Cambridge Street Boston, MA 02114 (2) Any such notice, demand or request shall be deemed to have been given on the day it is hand delivered or mailed. 10. Further Assurances. The Owner agrees from time to time, as may be reasonably required by the Monitoring Agent, to furnish the Monitoring Agent upon its request with a written statement, signed and, if requested, acknowledged, setting forth the condition and occupancy of the Property, information concerning the resale of the Property and other material information Rev. 12.4.19 1 pertaining to the Property and the Owner’s conformance with the requirements of the Comprehensive Permit, Program and Program Guidelines, as applicable. 11. Enforcement. (a) The rights hereby granted shall include the right of the Municipality and the Monitoring Agent to enforce this Deed Rider independently by appropriate legal proceedings and to obtain injunctive and other appropriate relief on account of any violations including without limitation relief requiring restoration of the Property to the condition, affordability or occupancy which existed prior to the violation impacting such condition, affordability or occupancy (it being agreed that there shall be no adequate remedy at law for such violation), and shall be in addition to, and not in limitation of, any other rights and remedies available to the Municipality and the Monitoring Agent. (b) Without limitation of any other rights or remedies of the Municipality and the Monitoring Agent, or their successors and assigns, in the event of any sale, conveyance or other transfer or occupancy of the Property in violation of the provisions of this Deed Rider, the Municipality and Monitoring Agent shall be entitled to the following remedies, which shall be cumulative and not mutually exclusive: (i) specific performance of the provisions of this Deed Rider; (ii) money damages for charges in excess of the Maximum Resale Price, if applicable; (iii) if the violation is a sale of the Property to an Ineligible Purchaser except as permitted herein, the Monitoring Agent and the Municipality shall have the option to locate an Eligible Purchaser to purchase or itself purchase the Property from the Ineligible Purchaser on the terms and conditions provided herein; the purchase price shall be a price which complies with the provisions of this Deed Rider; specific performance of the requirement that an Ineligible Purchaser shall sell, as herein provided, may be judicially ordered. (iv) the right to void any contract for sale or any sale, conveyance or other transfer of the Property in violation of the provisions of this Deed Rider in the absence of a Compliance Certificate, by an action in equity to enforce this Deed Rider; and (v) money damages for the cost of creating or obtaining a comparable dwelling unit for an Eligible Purchaser. (c) In addition to the foregoing, the Owner hereby agrees and shall be obligated to pay all fees and expenses (including legal fees) of the Monitoring Agent and/or the Municipality in the event successful enforcement action is taken against the Owner or Owner’s successors or assigns. The Owner hereby grants to the Monitoring Agent and the Municipality a lien on the Property, junior to the lien of any institutional holder of a first mortgage on the Property, to secure Rev. 12.4.19 1 payment of such fees and expenses in any successful enforcement action. The Monitoring Agent and the Municipality shall be entitled to seek recovery of fees and expenses incurred in a successful enforcement action of this Deed Rider against the Owner and to assert such a lien on the Property to secure payment by the Owner of such fees and expenses. Notwithstanding anything herein to the contrary, in the event that the Monitoring Agent and/or Municipality fails to enforce this Deed Rider as provided in this Section, DHCD, if it is not named as Monitoring Agent, shall have the same rights and standing to enforce this Deed Rider as the Municipality and Monitoring Agent. (d) The Owner for himself, herself or themselves and his, her or their successors and assigns, hereby grants to the Monitoring Agent and the Municipality the right to take all actions with respect to the Property which the Monitoring Agent or Municipality may determine to be necessary or appropriate pursuant to applicable law, court order, or the consent of the Owner to prevent, remedy or abate any violation of this Deed Rider. 12. Monitoring Agent Services; Fees. The Monitoring Agent shall monitor compliance of the Project and enforce the requirements of this Deed Rider. As partial compensation for providing these services, a Resale Fee [√] shall [ ] shall not be payable to the Monitoring Agent on the sale of the Property to an Eligible Purchaser or any other purchaser in accordance with the terms of this Deed Rider. This fee, if imposed, shall be paid by the Owner herein as a closing cost at the time of Closing, and payment of the fee to the Monitoring Agent shall be a condition to delivery and recording of its certificate, failing which the Monitoring Agent shall have a claim against the new purchaser, his, her or their successors or assigns, for which the Monitoring Agent may bring an action and may seek an attachment against the Property. 13. Actions by Municipality. Any action required or allowed to be taken by the Municipality hereunder shall be taken by the Municipality’s Chief Executive Officer or designee. 14. Severability. If any provisions hereof or the application thereof to any person or circumstance are judicially determined, to any extent, to be invalid or unenforceable, the remainder hereof, or the application of such provision to the persons or circumstances other than those as to which it is held invalid or unenforceable, shall not be affected thereby. 15. Independent Counsel. THE OWNER ACKNOWLEDGES THAT HE, SHE, OR THEY HAVE READ THIS DOCUMENT IN ITS ENTIRETY AND HAS HAD THE OPPORTUNITY TO CONSULT LEGAL AND FINANCIAL ADVISORS OF HIS, HER OR THEIR CHOOSING REGARDING THE EXECUTION, DELIVERY AND PERFORMANCE OF THE OBLIGATIONS HEREUNDER. 16. Binding Agreement. This Deed Rider shall bind and inure to the benefit of the persons, entities and parties named herein and their successors or assigns as are permitted by this Deed Rider. 17. Amendment. This Deed Rider may not be rescinded, modified or amended, in whole or in part, without the written consent of the Monitoring Agent, the Municipality and the holder of any mortgage or other security instrument encumbering all or any portion of the Property, which written consent shall be recorded with the Registry. Rev. 12.4.19 1 Executed as a sealed instrument this ______ day of ______________, 20___. Grantor: _________________________ By:________________________________ Its: Owner: _________________________ By:____________________________________ COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS ______________, ss. On this _____ day of ___________, 20___, before me, the undersigned Notary Public, personally appeared ____________________, ____________________ of __________________________, proved to me through satisfactory evidence of identification, which was my personal knowledge, to be the person whose name is signed on the preceding or attached document, and acknowledged to me that he/she signed it voluntarily for its stated purpose, as ____________________ of __________________________, and as the voluntary act of __________________________. _________________________________________ Notary Public My commission expires: COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS ____________________ County, ss. On this _______ day of ________________, 20___, before me, the undersigned notary public, personally appeared _____________________________________, proved to me through satisfactory evidence of identification, which was [check one]: [ ] a current driver’s license, [ ] a current U.S. passport, [ ] my personal knowledge, to be the person whose name is signed on the preceding document, and acknowledged to me that he/she signed it voluntarily for its stated purpose. ____________________________________ Notary Public My commission expires: SELECT BOARD UPDATE: WING ISLAND BOARDWALK PROJECT September 26, 2022 August 15th, 2022 PRESENTATION GOALS Recap of August 2022 Public Forum •Project History •Project Goals •Conceptual Design Elements Resident Feedback Potential Alternatives Next Steps & Timeline Wing Island Boardwalk Presentation, September 26, 2022 Acquired in 1961, Wing Island was the Town’s first open space acquisition. In 1988, Brewster purchased the 17-acre Drummer Boy Park property, adjacent to Quivett Marsh. In 1995, Town Meeting adopted a Master Plan for Drummer Boy Park, which governed its uses for several decades. In 2021, Town Meeting adopted an updated Master Plan for Drummer Boy Park, which included this proposed new connection. LANDMARK PROPERTIES Wing Island Boardwalk Presentation, September 26, 2022 Improved access to Wing Island was identified as a consensus goal in: Coastal Adaptation Strategy (2016) Coastal Resource Management Plan (2019) Vision Plan (2019) Select Board Strategic Plan (FY20- present) Local Comprehensive Plan (2022) Town Meeting unanimously approved updated Drummer Boy Park Master Plan & spending $50k of Town funds on Wing Island boardwalk design in Fall 2021. COMMUNITY INPUT Wing Island Boardwalk Presentation, September 26, 2022 ALIGNMENT WITH COMMUNITY PRIORITIES “Evaluate need for additional parking and possible boardwalk modifications to access Wing Island in response to changing sea level.” (Coastal Adaption Strategy) “Maintain or enhance peak-season access to public beaches and landings.” (Coastal Resource Management Plan) “Develop strategies to promote the use of underutilized public access locations, including Spruce Hill & Wing Island.” (Coastal Resource Management Plan) “Improve access for individuals with limited mobility & add new access locations in adapting to the future.” (Coastal Resource Management Plan) Wing Island Boardwalk Presentation, September 26, 2022 ALIGNMENT WITH COMMUNITY PRIORITIES “Provide services and infrastructure for an age friendly community…” (Brewster Vision Plan) “Improve public access to and expand use of recreational areas.” (Brewster Vision Plan) “Encourage expanded utilization of Drummer Boy Park for recreational purposes, including possible development of walkway to Wing Island.” (Brewster Vision Plan) “Increase public access to marine and freshwater resources.” (Open Space & Recreation Plan) 78% of residents (n = 501) stated they would like to see a trail/boardwalk to Wing Island from Drummer Boy Park in 2020 OSRP survey Wing Island Boardwalk Presentation, September 26, 2022 PROJECT GOALSLink disparate trails and provide much improved access over the tidal marsh separating Wing Island from the mainland. Enhance access to this community resource for residents and visitors of all ages and abilities. GOAL 2: CONNECT OPEN SPACE PROPERTIES GOAL 1: IMPROVE ACCESSIBILITY Wing Island Boardwalk Presentation, September 26, 2022 PROJECT GOALSImprove the user’s educational and recreational experience by adding viewing platforms and benches to the boardwalk. Preserve marsh and island by placing permanent conservation restriction. Visitors are frequently forced to walk on the marsh, negatively impacting the resource. GOAL 3: IMPROVE USER EXPERIENCE GOAL 4: PRESERVE HABITAT Wing Island Boardwalk Presentation, September 26, 2022 PROJECT GOALSClimate change causes increasingly high tides and storm surge, which in turn flood the marsh, often blocking access for 2+ hours. Existing marsh plank design is uneven and narrow - there are many joints which can present trip hazards. GOAL 5: CLIMATE CHANGE ADAPTATION GOAL 6: ADDRESS SAFETY HAZARD Wing Island Boardwalk Presentation, September 26, 2022 •The goals of this new plan are to: •Preserve the character of the park •Improve views of the bay •Enhance existing uses •Provide additional access to and throughout the park •The plan also accounts for future increased use of the park following construction of elevated boardwalk •Phase I includes parking, access, and stormwater improvements – planned to occur before new boardwalk DRUMMER BOY PARK MASTER PLAN GOALS Wing Island Boardwalk Presentation, September 26, 2022 NOW•Wing Island is accessed across the marsh on two 2x10” marsh planks from a foot path adjacent to the Cape Cod Museum of Natural History - floods twice daily at high tide. •Visitors either park at Drummer Boy and walk east on 6A or park at CCMNH lot(s). Wing Island Boardwalk Presentation, September 26, 2022 Wing Island Boardwalk Presentation, September 26, 2022 IMPROVING CONNECTIONS The proposed boardwalk will directly link Wing Island to: •Drummer Boy Park •Brewster Historical Society’s Windmill Village •Brewster Conservation Trust’s Windmill Meadow •Town Conservation Land •Cape Cod Museum of Natural History Wing Island Boardwalk Presentation, September 26, 2022 Quivett Creek Stoney Brook Creek Museum of Natural History Drummer Boy Park Wing Island Wing Island Boardwalk Presentation, September 26, 2022 •The proposed path would start at the eastern edge of Drummer Boy Park, lead across Town conservation land (Cedar Ridge), then north to Quivett Marsh. •A raised boardwalk would head east to connect with the existing route across the marsh before turning north to Wing Island. •The new boardwalk would also maintain the current connection to the Cape Cod Museum of Natural History.FUTUREWing Island Boardwalk Presentation, September 26, 2022 Drummer Boy Park Cape Cod Museum of Natural History Quivett Marsh Quivett Marsh Wing Island Proposed Boardwalk Town of Brewster Conservation Wing Island Boardwalk Presentation, September 26, 2022 Quivett Marsh Quivett Marsh Cape Cod Museum of Natural History Wing Island Drummer Boy Park Town of Brewster Conservation Proposed Boardwalk Wing Island Boardwalk Presentation, September 26, 2022 Wing Island To Museum of Natural History To Drummer Boy Park CONCEPT PLANS Wing Island Boardwalk Presentation, September 26, 2022 VIEW SOUTH FROM WING ISLAND Wing Island Boardwalk Presentation, September 26, 2022 Mean High Water 2022 (el. 6.0) Mean High Water 2050 (el. 8.4) Mean High Water 2070 (el. 10.2) 100 YR 2022 (el. 14.0) Boardwalk Deck (el. 12.0) Wing Island Landing - Wing Island Boardwalk Presentation, September 26, 2022 VIEW NORTH FROM OBSERVATION AREA AT PROPOSED START OF NEW BOARDWALK Wing Island Boardwalk Presentation, September 26, 2022 To Drummer Boy Park Mean High Water 2022 (el. 6.0) Mean High Water 2050 (el. 8.4) Mean High Water 2070 (el. 10.2) Boardwalk Deck (el. 15.0) 100 YR 2022 (el. 14.0) To Wing Island Proposed Boardwalk Wing Island Boardwalk Presentation, September 26, 2022 VIEW FROM END OF WOODLAND PATH SHOWING QUIVETT MARSH (WING ISLAND TO THE RIGHT) Wing Island Boardwalk Presentation, September 26, 2022 RAILING EXAMPLESWing Island Boardwalk Presentation, September 26, 2022 ●Helical piles have minimal footprint. ●Can be installed with minimal construction impact on the marsh. ●High weight bearing capacity and resistant to overturning. LOW IMPACT STRUCTURAL DESIGN Wing Island Boardwalk Presentation, September 26, 2022 PROJECT FUNDING Design & Permitting Cost $130,000 Mass Trails grant $50,000 Town funding $50,000 Private Donor (via BCT) $30,000 Construction Cost TBD* Private Donor (via BCT) $1,000,000 * Detailed cost estimate expected once design is further advanced Wing Island Boardwalk Presentation, September 26, 2022 Town held a public forum on August 15, 2022, to discuss the project and to provide residents with an opportunity to ask questions and make comments. A public comment period was held until September 2, 2022, inviting residents to submit written input on the conceptual project design. In total, the Town received 163 responses during the public comment period. RESIDENT FEEDBACK Wing Island Boardwalk Presentation, September 26, 2022 At least 60% of residents were opposed to the project, about 25% were in favor, and the remaining 15% provided feedback but did not express a strong position. General concerns about the project included environmental impacts, increased usage, resource management & related costs, and aesthetics/ appearance. A group of residents opposed to the project has formed as the Friends of Wing Island. FEEDBACK DETAILS Wing Island Boardwalk Presentation, September 26, 2022 •This project will involve the oversight and input of over a half dozen regulatory agencies, who will consider all potential environmental impacts. Greater detail will be provided at second public forum. •The Town has retained noted local expert, Dan Zoto, to conduct an intensive archaeological survey for proposed project impacts. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT? Wing Island Boardwalk Presentation, September 26, 2022 •Project consultants, Horsley Witten, are in the process of undertaking a carrying capacity analysis which aims to determine if the environmentally sensitive areas of Wing Island can adequately accommodate the volume of visitors associated with projected demand if the elevated boardwalk is constructed. •This analysis will also take into account current usage through Cape Cod Museum of Natural History programming and anticipated parking capacity at Drummer Boy Park. POTENTIAL FOR OVERUSE? Wing Island Boardwalk Presentation, September 26, 2022 •This project is currently in the conceptual design phase – no final decision has been made on the project route, height, width, and building materials. •The proposed height of the boardwalk is about 7 feet above the marsh in most locations. •The height was intended to account for sea level rise over the next 50 years – in 2070, the proposed boardwalk deck will be about 2 feet above mean high tide. APPEARANCE AND HEIGHT? Wing Island Boardwalk Presentation, September 26, 2022 Refine preliminary design (Concept 1) - Reduce proposed width from 10’ to 6’ & reduce size of overlooks - Move DBP connection closer to coastal bank - Consider reducing height Develop an alternative option (Concept 2) - Follow existing boardwalk path only (no direct connection to Drummer Boy), reduce width to 6’, and consider reducing height - Provide ADA access to Route 6A sidewalk - Construct ADA path from Drummer Boy to Cedar Ridge with marsh overlook PROPOSED PROJECT ADJUSTMENTS Wing Island Boardwalk Presentation, September 26, 2022 Revised Concept 1 New Concept 2 WHAT’S NEXT? •Select Board to provide policy direction on suggested alternatives and other options •Town to more prepare more detailed concept plans and finish carrying capacity analysis in anticipation of follow-up community forum •Town to decide on date and format for next forum •Permitting will not proceed until further public feedback and Select Board policy decision on project following next forum •No article planned for Fall 2022 Town Meeting Wing Island Boardwalk Presentation, September 26, 2022 WING ISLAND BOARDWALK PROJECT FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS 1. WHAT IS THE CURRENT STATUS OF THIS PROJECT? It is important to note that this project is currently in the conceptual design phase – no final decision has been made on the project route, height, width, and building materials. Town officials intend to use feedback from residents to inform what adjustments might be considered as we continue to move through the design phase. 2. WHAT ARE THE PROJECT PRIORITIES? • Improve accessibility – enhance access to this community resource for residents and visitors of all ages and abilities. • Connect open space properties – link disparate trails and amenities and provide improved access over the tidal marsh separating Wing Island from the mainland. • Climate change adaptation – climate change will cause increasingly higher tides and storm surge, which currently can block access for 2+ hours twice daily. • Improve user experience – improve the user’s educational and recreational experience by adding viewing platforms and benches. • Preserve habitat – place a permanent conservation restriction on Wing Island and develop a management plan for Wing Island and the beach and reduce negative impacts on the marsh from the current access. • Address safety hazard – existing marsh plank design is uneven and narrow - there are many joints which can present trip hazards. • Address Museum concerns about beachgoers use of private parking area – over the years, people have increasingly used the Cape Cod Museum of Natural History’s private parking lot as a means to visit the beach for free. The Museum needs this parking area for its visitors, and the ongoing prohibited use of the lot has impacted its business. Providing a direct connection from Drummer Boy Park will allow better control over this incorrect use of a private business’s parking area. 3. WHAT OPPORTUNITIES HAVE RESIDENTS HAD TO DATE TO OFFER FEEDBACK ON THIS PROJECT? The project has been discussed in many Town planning efforts over the last several years. Recent key plans in which this project has been included are: • Coastal Adaptation Strategy (2016), • Coastal Resources Management Plan (2019), • Vision Plan (2019), • Select Board Strategic Plan (2019-present), and • Local Comprehensive Plan (2022). The Town purchased the Cedar Ridge Reserve property adjacent to Drummer Boy Park in 2014. The conservation restriction on this parcel allows for a paved or unpaved walking trail and construction of marsh overlooks and a boardwalk. The property is under the care and custody of the Brewster Conservation Commission, who approved a management plan that identified a future elevated boardwalk to Wing Island off the coastal bank on this site. The Town asked residents to complete a survey as part of the 2020 Open Space & Recreation Plan update. This survey was available on our website and in hard copy at several Town buildings. The results of the survey can be found in the Appendix of the updated OSRP. Town Meeting unanimously approved the updated Drummer Boy Park Master Plan and spending $50k of Town funds on the Wing Island boardwalk design and permitting in Fall 2021. The Town held a first public forum on August 15, 2022 to preview early conceptual designs. The Town will host a follow-up public forum this fall to update residents on the project after taking public feedback on the conceptual design into account. 4. WHAT IS THE PROPOSED HEIGHT OF THE BOARDWALK, AND WHY? The marsh is currently about 5’ above mean sea level. In this area, our tides vary from a 9 to 12 foot tidal range. This means that on most tides, the marsh currently floods over the marsh planks and affects access to and from the island. The height of the proposed boardwalk as it leaves the trail at Cedar Ridge from the coastal bank is 8 to 10 feet above the marsh. This means that a person standing on the marsh will be 8 to 10 feet higher as they leave the woods, and on the main boardwalk segment they will be standing about 7 feet above the marsh surface. The height of the boardwalk was proposed in order to meet accessible design grades, the grade of the bluff at Cedar Ridge, and also to avoid the small ribbon of rare, protected plants along the southern edge of the marsh by Cedar Ridge. This height is reduced as the boardwalk reaches the north to south segment over the existing footprint of the marsh planks, where it will be approximately 7 feet over the marsh. These heights also take into account planning for sea level rise over the next 50 years – this is a significant infrastructural investment, and it is important to ensure that it will be of long-term use to residents. As indicated, the existing access planks often flood around high tide, and studies indicate that sea levels will rise 2+ feet by 2050 and 4+ feet by 2070. This means that in 2070, the proposed boardwalk deck will be about 2 feet above mean high tide. In this way, the preliminary design attempts to adequately account for future sea level rise. 5. WHAT IS THE PROJECT DOING TO AVOID DISRUPTIONS TO NATURAL RESOURCES? This project has ecological benefits – the raised boardwalk would reduce overall impact to the marsh by eliminating the current on-marsh plank path and limiting foot traffic on the marsh surface around the existing planks. The design has a helical pile supporting the boardwalk, meaning that each post is only affecting a small portion of the marsh. Our long-time partners in water resource planning, Horsley Witten, are in the process of undertaking a carrying capacity analysis to determine if the environmentally sensitive areas of Wing Island can accommodate the volume of visitors associated with projected demand, taking into account the anticipated parking capacity at Drummer Boy Park. As we work further though the design and permitting process, this project will involve the oversight and input of environmental regulatory agencies such as Brewster Conservation Commission, the Massachusetts Natural Heritage and Endangered Species Program (NHESP), and the Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection (MassDEP). 6. HOW WILL AN ELEVATED BOARDWALK INSTALLATION ACCOMMODATE MOBILITY IMPAIRED RESIDENTS? Many mobility impaired residents, young and old, are taking advantage of the recently installed paved paths at Drummer Boy Park and have asked for it to be expanded. The proposed boardwalk is intended to serve as an extension of those easily used paths, and the design goal is to meet accessibility standards from the existing paved paths at the park out to the beginning of the path at Wing Island. The current access to the marsh, and the island beyond, does not meet accessibility standards due to the grade from Main Street, the uneven surface of the marsh planks, and general unimproved nature of the access. The proposed boardwalk would allow access from the parking areas at Drummer Boy Park all the way across the marsh to the beginning of the Wing Island trails. No changes to the paths at Wing Island are proposed. 7. HOW IS THE PROJECT BEING FINANCED? • The Town was awarded $50,000 in state grant funding from MassTrails toward the $145,000 in total project costs for design and permitting. • We have a $30,000 cash match from an anonymous donor, passed on through our project partner, Brewster Conservation Trust, for this design phase. • $50,000 from Town funds was approved at Fall 2021 Town Meeting. • The remaining $15,000 of design & permitting costs is comprised of in-kind Town staff time. • An anonymous donor has offered a substantial investment of $1,000,000 toward construction (an offer that was made after the project was first proposed). AGREEMENT FOR PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERING SERVICES BETWEEN THE TOWN OF BREWSTER, MASSACHUSETTS AND Horsley Witten Group FOR Engineering Design & Permitting for Wing Island Boardwalk THIS AGREEMENT made this 3rd day of February 2022 between Horsley Witten Group, with a usual place of business at 90 Route 6A Unit 1 Sandwich MA 02563, hereinafter called the “ENGINEER,” and the Town of Brewster, MA, acting by its Town Administrator, with a usual place of business at 2198 Main Street, Town Hall, Brewster MA 02631 hereinafter called the “TOWN”. The ENGINEER and the TOWN, for the consideration hereinafter named, agree as follows: 1. Scope of Work The ENGINEER shall perform the work set forth in the Scope of Services attached hereto as Exhibit A. 2. Contract Price The TOWN shall pay the ENGINEER for services rendered in the performance of this Agreement a lump sum of $139,490.00 as defined in Exhibit A. The amount to be paid to the ENGINEER shall not exceed ($139,490.00) One Hundred Thirty Nine Thousand Four Hundred and Ninety Dollars and 00 cents without the prior written consent of the TOWN. 3. Commencement and Completion of Work A. This Agreement shall commence on February 3, 2022 and shall expire on June 30, 2023 unless terminated sooner or extended in writing in accordance with this Agreement. B. Progress and Completion: ENGINEER shall commence work promptly upon execution of this Agreement and shall prosecute and complete the work regularly, diligently and uninterruptedly at such a rate of progress as will insure completion in a timely manner. 4. Performance of the Work The ENGINEER shall supervise and direct the Work, using his best skills and attention, which shall not be less than such state of skill and attention generally rendered by the engineering/design profession for projects similar to the Project in scope, difficulty and location. D o c I D : 3 3 95 01 d6 7 d5 eb b1 a 6 4 25 24 c 9 6 ad e3 5b e a a 5f c c 3 8 2 A. Responsibility for the Work: (1) The ENGINEER shall be responsible to the TOWN for the acts and omissions of his employees, subcontractors and their agents and employees, and other persons performing any of the Work under a contract with the ENGINEER. Consistent with the standard of care referenced above, the ENGINEER shall be responsible for the professional and technical accuracy for all work or services furnished by him or his consultants and subcontractors. The ENGINEER shall perform his work under this Agreement in such a competent and professional manner that detail checking and reviewing by the TOWN shall not be necessary. (2) The ENGINEER shall not employ additional consultants, nor sublet, assign or transfer any part of his services or obligations under this Agreement without the prior approval and written consent of the TOWN. Such written consent shall not in any way relieve the ENGINEER from his responsibility for the professional and technical accuracy for the work or services furnished under this Agreement. (3) All consultants must be registered and licensed in their respective disciplines if registration and licensor are required under the applicable provisions of Massachusetts law. (4) The ENGINEER and all consultants and subcontractors shall conform their work and services to any guidelines, standards and regulations of any governmental authority applicable to the type of work or services covered by this Agreement. (5) The ENGINEER shall not be relieved from its obligations to perform the work in accordance with the requirements of this Agreement either by the activities or duties of the TOWN in its administration of the Agreement, or by inspections, tests or approvals required or performed by persons other than the ENGINEER. (6) Neither the TOWN's review, approval or acceptance of, nor payment for any of the work or services performed shall be construed to operate as a waiver of any rights under the Agreement or any cause of action arising out of the performance of the Agreement. B. Deliverables, Ownership of Documents: One (1) reproducible copy of all drawings, plans, specifications and other documents prepared by the ENGINEER shall become the property of the TOWN upon payment in full therefor to the ENGINEER. Ownership of stamped drawings and specifications shall not include the ENGINEER's certification or stamp. Any re-use of such documents without the ENGINEER's written verification of suitability for the specific purpose intended shall be without liability or legal exposure to the ENGINEER or D o c I D : 3 3 95 01 d6 7 d5 eb b1 a 6 4 25 24 c 9 6 ad e3 5b e a a 5f c c 3 8 3 to the ENGINEER's independent professional associates, subcontractors or consultants. Distribution or submission to meet official regulatory requirements or for other purposes in connection with the Project is not to be construed as an act in derogation of the ENGINEER's rights under this Agreement. C. Compliance With Laws: In the performance of the Work, the ENGINEER shall comply with all applicable federal, state and local laws and regulations, including those relating to workplace and employee safety. 5. Site Information Not Guaranteed; Contractor's Investigation The TOWN shall furnish to the ENGINEER available surveys, data and documents relating to the area which is the subject of the Scope of Work. All such information, including that relating to subsurface and other conditions, natural phenomena, existing pipes, and other structures is from the best sources at present available to the TOWN. All such information is furnished only for the information and convenience of the ENGINEER and is not guaranteed. It is agreed and understood that the TOWN does not warrant or guarantee that the subsurface or other conditions, natural phenomena, existing pipes, or other structures will be the same as those indicated in the information furnished, and the ENGINEER must satisfy himself as to the correctness of such information. If, in the opinion of the ENGINEER, such information is inadequate, the ENGINEER may request the TOWN's approval to verify such information through the use of consultants or additional exploration. In no case shall the ENGINEER commence such work without the TOWN's prior written consent. Such work shall be compensated as agreed upon by TOWN and ENGINEER. 6. Payments to the Contractor A. Cost incurred on this project shall be billed monthly on an hourly basis as outlined in the attached Scope of Services. Payment shall be due 30 days after receipt of an invoice by the TOWN. B. If there is a material change in the scope of work, the TOWN and the ENGINEER shall mutually agree to an adjustment in the Contract Price. C. If the TOWN authorizes the ENGINEER to perform additional services, the ENGINEER shall be compensated in an amount mutually agreed upon, in advance, in writing. Except in the case of an emergency, the ENGINEER shall not perform any additional services until such compensation has been so established. 7. Reimbursement Except as otherwise included in the Contract Price or otherwise provided for under this Agreement, the ENGINEER shall be reimbursed by the TOWN: (a) at 1.0 times the actual cost to the ENGINEER of consultants retained to obtain information pursuant to Article 5 hereof or otherwise. No such reimbursement shall be made unless the rates of compensation have been approved, in advance, by the TOWN; (b) at 1.0 times the actual cost of additional or specially authorized expense items, as approved by the TOWN. D o c I D : 3 3 95 01 d6 7 d5 eb b1 a 6 4 25 24 c 9 6 ad e3 5b e a a 5f c c 3 8 4 8. Final Payment, Effect The acceptance of final payment by the ENGINEER shall constitute a waiver of all claims by the ENGINEER arising under the Agreement. 9. Terms Required By Law This Agreement shall be considered to include all terms required to be included in it by the Massachusetts General Laws, and all other laws, as though such terms were set forth in full herein. 10. Indemnification A. General Liability: The ENGINEER shall indemnify and hold harmless the TOWN from and against any and all claims, damages, losses, and expenses, including attorney's fees, to the extent arising out of the performance of this Agreement and to the extent the same relate to matters of general commercial liability, when such claims, damages, losses, and expenses are caused, in whole or in part, by the negligent or wrongful acts or omissions of the ENGINEER or his employees, agents, subcontractors or representatives. B. Professional Liability: The ENGINEER shall indemnify and hold harmless the TOWN from and against any and all claims, damages, losses, and expenses, including attorney's fees, arising out of the performance of this Agreement and to the extent the same relate to the professional competence of the ENGINEER's services, when such claims, damages, losses, and expenses are caused, in whole or in part, by the negligent acts, negligent errors or omissions of the ENGINEER or his employees, agents, subcontractors or representatives. 11. Insurance A. The ENGINEER shall at his own expense obtain and maintain a Professional Liability Insurance policy for errors, omissions or negligent acts arising out of the performance of this Agreement in a minimum amount of $1,000,000.00. B. The coverage shall be in force from the time of the agreement to the date when all construction work for the Project is completed and accepted by the TOWN. If, however, the policy is a claims made policy, it shall remain in force for a period of six (6) years after completion. Since this insurance is normally written on a year-to-year basis, the ENGINEER shall notify the TOWN should coverage become unavailable. C. The ENGINEER shall, before commencing performance of this Agreement, provide by insurance for the payment of compensation and the furnishing of other benefits in accordance with M.G.L. c.152, as amended, to all its employees and D o c I D : 3 3 95 01 d6 7 d5 eb b1 a 6 4 25 24 c 9 6 ad e3 5b e a a 5f c c 3 8 5 shall continue such insurance in full force and effect during the term of the Agreement. D. The ENGINEER shall carry insurance in a sufficient amount to assure the restoration of any plans, drawings, computations, field notes or other similar data relating to the work covered by this Agreement in the event of loss or destruction until the final fee payment is made or all data are turned over to the TOWN. E. The ENGINEER shall also maintain public liability insurance, including property damage, bodily injury or death, and personal injury and motor vehicle liability insurance against claims for damages because of bodily injury or death of any person or damage to property. F. Evidence of insurance coverage and any and all renewals substantiating that required insurance coverage is in effect shall be filed with the Agreement. Any cancellation of insurance, whether by the insurers or by the insured, shall not be valid unless written notice thereof is given by the party proposing cancellation to the other party and to the TOWN at least fifteen days prior to the intended effective date thereof, which date shall be expressed in said notice. G. Upon request of the ENGINEER, the TOWN reserves the right to modify any conditions of this Article. 12. Notice All notices required to be given hereunder shall be in writing and delivered to, or mailed first class to, the parties' respective addresses stated above. In the event that immediate notice is required, it may be given by telephone or facsimile, but shall, to the extent possible, be followed by notice in writing in the manner set forth above. 13. Termination A. The TOWN shall have the right to terminate this Agreement in the event of a failure of the ENGINEER to comply with the terms of the Agreement. Such termination shall be effective upon seven days' notice to the party in default and the failure within that time of said party to cure its default. B. The TOWN shall also have the right to terminate the Agreement without cause, upon ten (10) days' written notice to the ENGINEER. In the event that the Agreement is terminated pursuant to this subparagraph, the ENGINEER shall be reimbursed in accordance with the Agreement for all work performed up to the termination date. C. By written notice to the TOWN, the ENGINEER may terminate this contract: (1) if the Town, within sixty (60) days following the TOWN’s receipt of the written notice of any default by the TOWN under the contract, shall have failed to remove such default. Upon any such termination by the ENGINEER, all compensation and reimbursement payable to the ENGINEER in accordance with the contract, up to and including the date of termination, shall be paid to the D o c I D : 3 3 95 01 d6 7 d5 eb b1 a 6 4 25 24 c 9 6 ad e3 5b e a a 5f c c 3 8 6 Designer by the Town. No amount shall be allowed for anticipated profit on unperformed services. 14. Miscellaneous A. Assignment: The ENGINEER shall not assign or transfer any of its rights, duties or obligations under this Agreement without the written approval of the TOWN. B. Governing Law: This Agreement shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the law of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have set their hands and seals, the TOWN by its authorized representative who, however, incurs no personal liability by reason of the execution hereof or of anything herein contained, as of the day and year first above written. Date_____________________ By: _________________________________ Name: _______________________________ Type or Print Title: ________________________________ TOWN OF BREWSTER: By: _________________________________ Peter Lombardi, Town Administrator CERTIFICATION OF AVAILABILITY OF FUNDS In accord with General Laws, Chapter 44, §31C, this is to certify that an appropriate in the amount of this contract is available therefor. By: Mimi Bernardo, Finance Director ($139,490.00) DCR Gran t, B C T Don a t i o n , S pe c A rt ,, Op s D o c I D : 3 3 95 01 d6 7 d5 eb b1 a 6 4 25 24 c 9 6 ad e3 5b e a a 5f c c 3 8 January 27, 2022 Mr Christopher Miller, Director Brewster Department of Natural Resources 1657 Main Street Brewster, MA, 02631 RE: Revised Proposal for Engineering and Permitting Services for the Wing Island Boardwalk Project Dear Mr. Miller: On behalf of the Horsley Witten group, Inc. I am pleased to submit this proposal to assist the Town of Brewster with the planning, design and permitting of the proposed elevated walkway to be constructed from Drummer Boy Park to Wing Island with a connection to the Cape Cod Museum of Natural History. The approximate location of the proposed boardwalk is shown on the figure below and was used to develop the proposed scope of work described below. Figure 1 – Project Area D o c I D : 3 3 95 01 d6 7 d5 eb b1 a 6 4 25 24 c 9 6 ad e3 5b e a a 5f c c 3 8 Mr. Chris Miller January 27, 2022 2 SCOPE OF SERVICES Task 1: Kickoff Meeting, Collection and Review of Existing Data The project team will meet with the town staff and other identified stakeholders, to discuss the project goals, expectations, schedule, and anticipated construction budget, and other items of concern. Following the kickoff meeting, a follow-up site visit and assessment to collect additional data pertinent to trail/boardwalk design will be conducted. A GIS base map with the approximate proposed trail alignment locations will be created and uploaded onto a tablet computer using (iPad) using ArcGIS data input technology. Significant plant communities, viewsheds, invasive plant species and other points of interest not identified in the GIS data will be mapped. During the field assessment path alignment options, areas for improvements or restoration, and opportunities for educational outreach/signage will be identified. The data collected will help inform the conceptual design process. Estimated Cost: $5,050.00 Task 2: Carrying Capacity Analysis The carrying capacity of the Wing Island and the overall project will be evaluated to determine how it impacts the design of the boardwalk and how it relates to available parking at Drummer Boy Park and the Cape Cod Museum of Natural History. The limitations are associated with the number of people that can visit the Wing Island without creating problems with rare species and other environmental resources, and the number of parking spaces available at Drummer Boy Park. HW will attend two meetings to coordinate the information developed for the analysis and develop a brief memorandum describing the results of the assessment. Estimated Cost: $3,990.00 Task 3: Wetland Resource Area Mapping Wetland resource areas in the vicinity of the proposed project will be identified and flagged in the field. This will include along the path of the proposed boardwalk, on the shoreline of Wing Island and along the salt marsh on the north side of Drummer Boy Park and The Cape Cod Museum of Natural History. Estimated Cost: $3,690.00 Task 4: Site Survey and Existing Conditions Plan The proposed project site will be surveyed to create an existing conditions plan. Survey data will include above-ground site features within the project limits including trees greater than 12” diameter, natural features, critical spot grades and natural resources flags. The survey will utilize North American Vertical Datum of 1988 (NAVD 88) and the Massachusetts State Plane Coordinate System as a horizontal datum, so that the survey data may be correlated with FEMA floodplain mapping and State GIS mapping. All relevant data and information will be compiled into an existing conditions plan for use in subsequent design stages. Estimated Cost: $12,440 D o c I D : 3 3 95 01 d6 7 d5 eb b1 a 6 4 25 24 c 9 6 ad e3 5b e a a 5f c c 3 8 Mr. Chris Miller January 27, 2022 3 Task 5: Conceptual Design Based upon the information gathered in the above tasks, the project team will develop two conceptual path designs. The rendered plans will include the type of boardwalk that will be built, the path connections, boardwalk alignment, and the connections from the boardwalk to entrance point at Drummer Boy Park, the Museum and from Wing Island. Access for people with disabilities will be included in the designs along with potential opportunities for a platform in the middle to allow people to sit and view the marsh. This task will include time for one design meeting with town staff to review the conceptual alternatives. The concept that will be used for further design and permitting will be selected with input from the public through the outreach task below. Estimated Cost: $8,090.00 Task 6: Public Outreach HW proposes two public meetings to discuss the proposed project. The first workshop will be held at the beginning of the project and will present the background and potential value of the boardwalk, the resources in the salt marsh around Wing Island and the habitat value provided the island itself. The initial design concepts for the boardwalk will be discussed along with the carrying capacity of the boardwalk and the island itself. The second meeting will provide more detail on the proposed design, incorporating information from the first meeting and requesting additional input and comments on the final boardwalk design. The timeline for the project will be updated and the permitting process will be outlined. It is anticipated that both meetings will be conducted virtually and presentation materials can be provided to the participants through the meeting room chat, or by placing them on the Town’s website. Estimated Cost $6,410.00 Task 7: Archeological Survey HW will team with Daniel Zoto to conduct an archeological intensive (locational) survey for the upland areas of the proposed boardwalk. A full proposal for this work, prepared by Mr. Zoto is attached to this proposal. The results of this assessment will be incorporated as needed into the project design and permitting included in Tasks 8 and 9. Estimated Cost: $14,000.00 Task 8 Design Development HW will develop 50% design plans and supporting calculations for the preferred boardwalk concept. The path and boardwalk design will be advanced to illustrate the location, dimensions and alignment of the path and proposed boardwalk. Basic pathway and boardwalk materials will be identified along with locations for proposed site elements to be selected during the next phase. The pilings or other structures needed to support the boardwalk in the salt marsh will be located and the extent of wetland D o c I D : 3 3 95 01 d6 7 d5 eb b1 a 6 4 25 24 c 9 6 ad e3 5b e a a 5f c c 3 8 Mr. Chris Miller January 27, 2022 4 alteration calculated. Plans will include path and boardwalk profiles along with general site construction notes, and associated details. A draft set of design plans will be submitted to the town for review and comment. Information and design specifications at this level will only include the preliminary construction notes and details for cost estimating and permitting purposes. Upon completion of the 50% Design a cost estimate for the project will be developed based on the take- off of the design elements, quantities, and the latest Massachusetts Department of Transportation (MassDOT) weighted average prices and typical construction costs and data. Estimated Cost: Labor $17,280.00 Task 9: Permitting The following efforts are anticipated as part of environmental permitting for the proposed project. Pre-Permitting Meetings Given the scope of project impacts and the number of permits anticipated, HW recommends that the project team coordinate and attend pre-permitting discussions with regulatory agency staff, including Brewster Conservation Commission, the Massachusetts Natural Heritage and Endangered Species Program (NHESP), Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection (MassDEP), U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Massachusetts Coastal Zone Management (CZM), and potentially Massachusetts Division of Marine Fisheries (DMF). To accomplish this, we propose to schedule and hold one on-site comprehensive pre-permitting meeting so that the regulatory agencies may observe site conditions. Additional time has been included for mandatory and anticipated meetings or public hearings that area part of each permit review. Project Permitting The project team will develop permit application packages and supporting documentation for the following permits: Environmental Notification Form Resource area alterations exceeding certain regulatory thresholds and requiring other State agency action or State funding are required to undergo review under the Massachusetts Environmental Policy Act (M.G.L. c. 30 §§ 61 through 62H, inclusive or MEPA) through an Environmental Notification Form (ENF) at a minimum. Based upon our understanding of the project, it does not appear that mandatory review through an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) would be required. MEPA review provides an opportunity for State agencies and other project stakeholders to comment upon a project in advance of permitting to identify issues early in the project planning. For this reason, it is recommended that the ENF be filed prior to any of the permit applications to gather multiple state agency input. Attendance at one mandatory on-site meeting is included. Following issuance of the MEPA Certificate by the Secretary of Executive Office of Energy and Environmental Affairs (EEA), HW will submit the remaining permit applications and attend the associated public hearings and meetings as described below. D o c I D : 3 3 95 01 d6 7 d5 eb b1 a 6 4 25 24 c 9 6 ad e3 5b e a a 5f c c 3 8 Mr. Chris Miller January 27, 2022 5 Order of Conditions Under the Massachusetts Wetlands Protection Act and the Code of the Town of Brewster, Wetlands Protection Bylaw (Chapter 172), alteration of any wetland resource area and/or its associated buffer zone requires the filing of a Notice of Intent (NOI) application with the local Conservation Commission and the Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection (MassDEP). Based upon our understanding of the proposed project, direct, but minimal, impacts to a variety of coastal and/or freshwater wetland resources is anticipated. HW will need to present an alternatives analysis as well as develop mitigation measures to address unavoidable impacts to resource areas. As part of the permitting, permission for the geologic borings included in Task 10 will be requested. As part of this permit application, the HW will complete the necessary application forms, and submit these along with a comprehensive project narrative and project plans detailing the proposed project. The proponent will obtain a certified abutters list and notify abutters in accordance with the local regulations. Attendance at up to three public hearings and/or on-site meetings is anticipated. MESA Project Review A portion of the project site, specifically the Quivett Creek/Paines Creek Marsh is identified as Priority Habitat for Rare Species (PH 945) and a botanical survey has identified the presence of salt reedgrass (Spartina cynosuroides), a state-listed Threatened plant species. This will require mandatory MESA Project Review with the Massachusetts Natural Heritage and Endangered Species Program (NHESP) under Massachusetts Endangered Species Act (M.G.L. Ch. 131A; MESA). The MESA Regulations at 321 CMR 10.00 prohibit the “Take” of any plant or animal listed as Endangered, Threatened, or Species of Special Concern (collectively “rare species”) by the Massachusetts Division of Fisheries and Wildlife, NHESP. The Project needs to demonstrate that it will have no adverse impact on this or any other species that may be present. The Project Review document will be prepared by HW based on prior information developed as part of the Drummer Boy Park Master Plan Water Quality Certification Projects involving alterations to waters of the Commonwealth above certain thresholds are required to undergo permitting through a Water Quality Certification (WQC) under Section 401 of the federal Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. 1251, et seq.). Any activity resulting in the discharge of dredged or fill material in any salt marsh will require WQC. The project team will prepare the permit application and project narrative addressing the regulations and performance standards under 314 CMR 9.00. One meeting with MassDEP staff is anticipated as part of the WQC permitting process. Chapter 91 Waterways The Massachusetts DEP Bureau of Resource Protection, Waterways Regulation Program requires a license or permit for any project that will affect tidal waters or certain non-tidal rivers and streams where an activity may reduce the space available for navigation. The proposed project will occur within tidal waters and will require permitting under the Public Waterfront Act (M.G.L. Ch. 91) and its regulations at 310 CMR 9.00. The project team will prepare the permit application and project narrative addressing the regulations and performance standards. In addition, there are specific plan requirements that necessitates preparation of separate plans. D o c I D : 3 3 95 01 d6 7 d5 eb b1 a 6 4 25 24 c 9 6 ad e3 5b e a a 5f c c 3 8 Mr. Chris Miller January 27, 2022 6 There may be an opportunity to file the WQC and Ch. 91 permit applications as a Combined Application, and the project team will investigate this opportunity to reduce permitting efforts and will discuss this with MassDEP during the pre-permitting efforts. General Permit Alterations with waters subject to the ebb and flow of the tides will require permitting under Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899 and potentially under Section 404 of the federal Clean Water Act through the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. It is anticipated that the project would be permitted under the Massachusetts General Permit. The project team will prepare the permit application addressing the appropriate performance standards. Additional input is sought from regional Tribal entities, the Bureau of Underwater Archaeology, and Massachusetts Historical Commission (MHC) during this permitting effort. It is anticipated that the Corps will require Coastal Zone Management (CZM) Consistency Review and consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) as part of this permitting. Estimated Cost: $38,565.00 Task 10: Geotechnical Evaluation HW will subcontract with Pare Corporation to conduct a geotechnical evaluation of the pathway to Wing Island and provide recommendations on the proper design of the boardwalk. Pare will supervise the installation of five geologic borings along the boardwalk path, and will document the types of soils and the depth to groundwater in each boring. They will summarize this information in a letter report along with recommendations on the depths and type of foundations to use for the boardwalk. Estimated Cost: $14,900.00 Task 11: Construction Plans, Specifications and Bid Support Upon review and approval of the 50% design plans by the Town and the relevant permitting agencies, the design will be finalized, and the 100% construction plan set, and technical specifications will be provided to the town for review. These plans will incorporate the geotechnical design recommendations from the assessment conducted in Task 10. The Town Purchasing Office will provide all Division 0 and 1 boilerplate bid documents and specifications outlining the Town’s procurement, contracting and administrative requirements. The cost estimate will be updated based on the 100% design plans. The project team will prepare for and attend one pre-bid meeting to review the project and answer questions and prepare a bid document addendum, if necessary. The project team will also assist the Town in reviewing the bidder qualifications for the two lowest bidders, including checking references and preparing a written record of our bidder qualifications review and recommendation to award. Estimated Cost: $15,075.00 Total Estimated Cost $139,490.00 HW is ready to begin this project upon authorization from you and completion of a signed contract. We propose this work as a not to exceed, time and materials project. D o c I D : 3 3 95 01 d6 7 d5 eb b1 a 6 4 25 24 c 9 6 ad e3 5b e a a 5f c c 3 8 Mr. Chris Miller January 27, 2022 7 Thank you for your consideration of this proposal and we look forward to helping the Town with this project. Sincerely, HORSLEY WITTEN GROUP, INC. Mark E. Nelson, P.G. Principal D o c I D : 3 3 95 01 d6 7 d5 eb b1 a 6 4 25 24 c 9 6 ad e3 5b e a a 5f c c 3 8 Audit Trail Title File Name Document ID Audit Trail Date Format Status HW engineering for Wing Island Wing Island Board...gn 02.03.2022.pdf 339501d67d5ebb1a642524c96ade35beaa5fcc38 MM / DD / YYYY Signed 02 / 08 / 2022 00:57:43 UTC Sent for signature to Peter Lombardi (plombardi@brewster-ma.gov) and Mimi Bernardo (mbernardo@brewster-ma.gov) from dkalinick@brewster-ma.gov IP: 131.109.131.20 02 / 08 / 2022 01:11:21 UTC Viewed by Peter Lombardi (plombardi@brewster-ma.gov) IP: 131.109.131.20 02 / 08 / 2022 01:12:02 UTC Signed by Peter Lombardi (plombardi@brewster-ma.gov) IP: 131.109.131.20 02 / 08 / 2022 19:50:51 UTC Viewed by Mimi Bernardo (mbernardo@brewster-ma.gov) IP: 131.109.131.20 02 / 16 / 2022 15:40:58 UTC Signed by Mimi Bernardo (mbernardo@brewster-ma.gov) IP: 131.109.131.20 The document has been completed.02 / 16 / 2022 15:40:58 UTC COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS · EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF ENERGY & ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS Department of Conservation and Recreation 251 Causeway Street, Suite 600 Boston MA 02114-2119 617-626-1250 617-626-1351 Fax www.mass.gov/orgs/department-of-conservation-recreation Charles D. Baker Governor Karyn E. Polito Lt. Governor Kathleen A. Theoharides, Secretary Executive Office of Energy & Environmental Affairs Stephanie C. Cooper, Acting Commissioner Department of Conservation and Recreation Notice To Proceed Christopher Miller Town of Brewster Dept. of Natural Resources 1657 Main Street Brewster, MA 02631 RE: Wing Island Boardwalk Design and Permitting – Award Contract No.: P22-3472-G29A Dear Mr. Miller, The following is provided as formal authorization to proceed with your MassTrails, Recreational Trails Program Grant as described in your proposal for the Wing Island Boardwalk Design and Permitting project. The authorization is effective as of the date signed below and the reimbursable portion of the project is not to exceed the grant amount of $50,000.00. All work is expected to be completed by December 31, 2023. Department oversight will be provided by Amanda Lewis, MassTrails Program Manager. All official project correspondence, reimbursements, and other documentation and tracking forms must be submitted to the MassTrails administrative team at amanda.lewis@mass.gov and elizabeth.knott@mass.gov, unless otherwise specified. Sincerely, ______________________________ ___________________________ Patrice Kish Authorization Date Chief, Design and Engineering cc: Robert Boncore, Director of Contract Administration & Procurement Ginna Johnson, Bureau of Design and Project Management Amanda Lewis, MassTrails Program Manager Libby Knott, MassTrails Grants Coordinator 12/28/2021 ''HSWRI&RQVHUYDWLRQDQG5HFUHDWLRQ '&5 &7'&53* Max Tassinari CFO described herein. 2.The Treasurer of the Town shall hold the Gift Account funds in the Gift Account, to be expended by the Town Administrator or designee, upon approval of the Select Board, without further appropriation pursuant to G.L. c. 44, §53A for the purposes of: (1) assessment, design, permitting of the Project; (2) professional services and construction costs associated with the Project; and (3) such other planning related studies and/or expenses determined to be appropriate or required by the Town or its officials in relation to the Project. Permissible use of the Gift Account funds shall include but not be limited to the hiring and payment of designers, engineers, consultants, contractors, and subcontractors as deemed necessary by the Town to undertake the Project. 3.In consideration of this grant of funds, and at the direction of the Trust the Town shall name the boardwalk to be built through the Project in honor of a person to be named prior to the commencement of construction. The Town will maintain signage at each end of the boardwalk reflecting said name, which signage shall be no more than 24 inches by 24 inches, unless other dimensions are required by a state agency or local regulatory commission, with remaining details to be determined before project construction commences. a.Neither the Trust nor the Donor shall have rights to rename or amend the name of the boardwalk once the Project is complete and signs have been ordered, however, the Donor may, upon written request to and approval by the Select Board, amend the name of the boardwalk after the execution of this Agreement and until such time as the Town orders signs for the boardwalk. b.In no event shall the boardwalk be renamed within 30 years of the completion of the Project. On and after the thirtieth anniversary of such completion, should the boardwalk need substantial repairs or to be rebuilt, for any reason, the Donor, the Donor’s estate, or the Donor’s Family Foundation shall be granted the right of first refusal to donate sufficient funds in a timely manner as may be needed to cover the costs associated with such repairs and may therefore retain such naming rights. If the Donor does not exercise this right of refusal, the Town may rename the boardwalk pursuant to the terms of any future donations, grants and/or gift agreements for such purposes. The Town shall utilize any and all available insurance proceeds prior to seeking or receiving any such grants and donations. The Town will make all reasonable efforts not to rename the boardwalk pursuant to the terms of this section 3(b). c.Should the Donor or the person for whom the boardwalk is named be convicted of a felony by a court of competent jurisdiction, the Town reserves the right to rename the boardwalk. The Town may also rename the boardwalk if the Donor or the person for whom the boardwalk is named are credibly accused of crimes of moral turpitude, which determination shall be made at the sole discretion of the Select Board. 4.Once all outstanding costs and fees detailed above have been fully paid in relation to the Project, any remaining Gift Account funds shall be returned to BCT, at which time the Gift Account shall be closed. 5.Any interest accrued under the Gift Account shall be used for any purpose allowed under this Agreement. 6.Any report, design, plan or advice generated with Gift Account funds shall be for the sole benefit of the Town, by and through its Select Board, shall be the property of the Town, and shall not be disclosed or shared except as required by the Public Records Law, and any other applicable provisions of state or federal law. 7.It is hereby acknowledged that the Town shall have the right, but not the obligation, to use the Gift Account funds, including any accrued interest, obtained hereunder for the stated purpose and that the Town shall not be deemed to have waived its right to use the funds or be deemed guilty of laches if the Town delays in using the funds. 8.In further consideration of this grant of funds, the Town shall convey to the Trust a conservation restriction in the property known as Wings Island, as further described as the deed recorded in the Barnstable County Registry of Deeds Book 1123, Page 170, said grant of restriction to be subject to approval by vote of Town Meeting and, as necessary, the Massachusetts state legislature, and approval of the terms and conditions of such conservation restriction by the Select Board. 9.This Agreement is intended to govern how the Gift Account funds may be used and is not intended to be construed as obligating the Town to take any particular action except with respect to the naming of the boardwalk, as set forth in section 3. 10.This Agreement shall be binding on and inure to the benefit of the parties; the benefits hereof may not be transferred or assigned without prior written consent of the parties. 11.This Agreement shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the law of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, without regard to conflict of laws principles. 12.If any term or condition of this Agreement or any application thereof shall to any extent be held invalid, illegal or unenforceable by the court of competent jurisdiction, the validity, legality, and enforceability of the remaining terms and conditions of this Agreement shall not be deemed affected thereby unless one or both parties would be substantially or materially prejudiced. 13.This Agreement, including all documents incorporated herein by reference, constitutes the entire integrated agreement between the parties with respect to the matters described. This Agreement supersedes all prior agreements, negotiations and representations, either written or oral, and it shall not be modified or amended except by a written document executed by the parties hereto. Order of Taking for Wing Island and surrounding marsh and beach, 1961 Deeds Book 1123-170 “Public Recreational Areas” are protected under Article 97 of the Mass. Constitu- tion as open space, just as conservation land and public parks are. A home rule petition passed by Town Meeting and a Special Act of the legislature is needed to convey a property interest in Wing Island to a third par- ty (i.e., BCT) under Article 97. This was done in 2003 for the marsh, with CR to Mass. DCR. Page 12 EXHIBIT A excerpt 2004 CR on marsh 2004 CR not on island CHAPTER 161 of the Acts of 2004 (Mass. Legislature) Because the conveyance of this 2004 Conservation Restriction from the Town of Dennis and Town of Brewster involved salt marsh held by their respective Conservation Commissions under Article 97 protec- tions, a special act of the legislature was needed to allow the two towns to execute the CR to the State DCR. Both Town Meetings had to pass a home rule petition to seek that legislative approval. Because Wing Island was taken in the same deed as the marshes for similar process would be needed for Brewster to convey a CR to the Brewster Cons. Trust on Wing Island (i.e., votes of ConCom, Town Meeting and State Legislature for Article 97 approval). - - - Mark H. Robinson, The Compact of Cape Cod Conservation Trusts, Inc., 7-24-20 Town of Brewster 2198 Main Street Brewster, MA 02631-1898 Phone: (508) 896-3701 Fax: (508) 896-8089 Public Comments Received to boardwalk@brewster-ma.gov Donna L Smith <DLSmith1982@comcast.net> I am writing to register my strong opposition to the proposed boardwalk from Drummer Boy to Wing Island. Even if this is 100% funded by a so-called “anonymous donor”, it is a terrible idea for so many reasons. You have no doubt heard many well-argued objections which are more articulate than any that I can articulate but here’s a brief list: This is an environmentally sensitive area which hosts a bird banding station There is already erosion on the trails through the island especially the “steps” down to the bay. Additional foot traffic will exacerbate this situation and require yet a “new solution” There is a high likelihood that the boardwalk will be washed away in a storm Increased traffic will result in litter and dogs in an environmentally sensitive area Donna Smith 365 Holly Ave ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Rose Pye <rose.c.pye@gmail.com> Hello - I am a property owner in Brewster since 2014, my husband since 1978. I am writing to express my opposition to the proposed Wing Island Boardwalk. Access to Wing Island should remain as is today. A boardwalk would encourage people in the summer to park at Drummer Boy and access the beach via Wing Island. Look what has happened at the Eddy Sisters Bay trail on Lower Road - people reaching the end of the trail with the bay view were climbing over the split rail fence and down the dune to access the beach, so much so that the town had to put up a better barrier to prevent this. The proposed boardwalk would be exponentially worse than this. I am strongly opposed to this proposal. Thank you for your time. Rosemary Pye 44 Ranney Lane Brewster ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ mark.sampson.wilson@gmail.com Office of: Select Board Town Administrator To Whom It May Concern Please do not do this. Of course the proje3ct sounds nice and there will be individuals and groups that are supportive. However, we all live in Brewster and we all came here or stayed here because of what Brewster is and was. This seems to be yet another project that “sounds good” and will be nice and add to the benefits of Brewster. As we continue down this road we risk, with a great deal of certainty, that the Brewster we end up with will be unlike the Brewster we wanted to live in. More is not always better. Respectfully, Mark S. Wilson Mark.Sampson.Wilson@gmail.com 1-774-454-5613 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Susan Nock <dnsn21@gmail.com> Hello, As a Brewster resident, I am writing to voice my concern over the proposed boardwalk at wing island. Our household does not support the proposed boardwalk. It is counter to the conservation and preservation of wild areas. It also destroys the natural beauty of the area. As a garden designer I spend most of my time integrating people into nature BUT firmly believe that some areas are best left as they are - beautiful, natural, and preserved for nature and not humans. Why would our town spend money on this when we have other important projects (First Light Beach) that need funds and attention? This seems like both a waste of town (tax payer) funds and against the conservation/preservation policies that the town supposedly pursues. Thank you, Susan Nock 32 Susanna Drive, Brewster ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Martha Holden <rosaquartz@hotmail.com> I am against development of the marsh area of the Drummer Boy conservation area. Aren't we supposed to protect these areas? Instead, we are developing them by cutting through sensitive vegetation and animal habitats. Don't turn one the most beautiful views in Brewster into a network of walkways and people. The construction alone would interrupt the wildlife and have a permanent impact on the marsh. Next the people come and there are more issues to be dealt with such as; garbage, noise, bathrooms, beach- goers, handicapped...all leading to more development in my opinion! The project is snowballing into a monster already! A new boardwalk is definitely needed at the museum, but let's keep it simple. One boardwalk is enough. regards, Martha Holden ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Elizabeth Perry <lizprints@gmail.com> Dear Town of Brewster, BCT and our Dept. of Natural Resources, I attended the Zoom meeting last night about the proposed boardwalk, and heard both sides of the argument, but now I can see how large this project really is. We need to get accurate renderings from the design group that show clearly what this boardwalk will look like and how it will impact our view of Wing Island and the surrounding marsh— forever. We need to post these drawings where the public can see them, in public areas in town. I am opposed to building this huge structure across our beautiful marsh, and the effects too many visitors will have on Wing Island. I think that the people of Brewster were not properly informed about the scope and nature of this project, and that most of the work was done during Covid when people were isolated and not connected with this potential project. The survey that was turned in to you about this project may have had 80% of the respondents approve of it, but there were only 500 people who took the survey. That is not representative of the majority of Brewster voters. Please don’t say, as was stated last night, that 80% of Brewster is in favor of building this huge boardwalk, that is just not true. I have spoken with many people who are really, truly horrified to learn about this potential boardwalk. John Hay would not approve of it, in any way. My husband Carl Ahlstrom worked for John Hay for 40 years, and we are quite sure that he would have opposed this project. Also the slides presented last night stated that the town of Brewster purchased Drummer Boy Park, but I believe that it was given to the town, most generously, by the McGowan family. The conservation area recently purchased by the town to the east of Drummer Boy should not be made into a highway to a new boardwalk, but preserved for the wildlife and protected. Isn’t this what our Dept. of Natural Resources and our Brewster Conservation Trust is supposed to do, protect our natural habitats from development and overuse? What you are proposing will do is just the opposite of that. I’m all for a large, accessible viewing platform that would extend out somewhat from Drummer Boy Park into the marsh for a nice view. Also, why can’t the town improve the board path from the Museum to Wing Island without it becoming a massive project? People in wheelchairs will not be able to access the trail up to Wing Island, but able bodied people will certainly use it to access the island and take full advantage of a free beach. I hope that we all have a chance to vote on this project at Town Meeting on Nov. 14. Liz Perry and Carl Ahlstrom, residents of Brewster for 60 years and please just leave it alone. 80 Blue Jacket Way, Brewster ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Aleta Steward thecape@earthlink.net Hello; I never received any kind of survey, I have lived in Brewster since 1987 & own 2 properties here. Whoever is coming up with these ideas (like Millstone Road) is ruining the town. Wing Island is beautiful because access is limited. People ruin everything. If you make it easy to get there, next thing you know it will be filled with people looking for a “free” beach, kids screaming all over the place, which disturbs the birds and wildlife, and others who will do stupid things, like have parties have night, leaving their trash, or like the guy I came across one day, turning horseshoe crabs upside down. I have been a wildlife /bird artist & studied both for 40 years. There is a unique unspoiled environment on Wing Island. Leave it alone. Stop worrying about the few “diverse” people who may not be able to access it. That’s just the way it is. Sometimes protecting the bluebirds, warblers etc take precedence. NO NO NO. Do NOT build a boardwalk to Wing Island. The people of Brewster do NOT want it. End of story. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Hector Traci <htoc02332@gmail.com> Resident of Brewster and I’m totally opposed to boardwalk from Drummer Park to Wing Island. I feel that adding more man made structures to a beautiful landscape will ruin the beauty no matter how well done this is. The beauty of Brewster compared to other towns on the cape is why we chose to move here permanently. I would also like to add, how is this conserving the marsh having contractors out there building a board walk ? Increasing parking will ruin Drummer Park.I have mobility issues and I would not want this. It will ruin the natural beauty of this area. Upkeep in future also an added expense. Thank you for your time, Traci Quintin Sent from my iPhone ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Rodriguez, Hector A <hector.rodriguez@verizonwireless.com> I would like to register my objection to the Wing Island Boardwalk. Any construction over this sensitive marshland will damage this pristine environment and draw visitors who may not have the same conservation goals as citizens of Brewster. A boardwalk canopy will have adverse effects to species who make this area their home. There are so many worthy conservation projects for which these funds would be better spent. Do we really need a building project? I moved to Brewster because it does protect it's habitat and has many accessible trails. I walk everyday and see that the town has many donated open spaces accessible for walking and expanding ones educational and recreation activities. The town does not need a boardwalk highway. I would vote to improve the ADA options at the current town properties. In a hundred years, I would not be convinced that a boardwalk highway will preserve the marsh and rare species better than leaving them alone and not encouraging more people traffic. Hector Rodriguez 416 Paines Creek Rd Brewster MA 02631 Rosemary Lappin <rlappin@comcast.net> Dear Select Board Members: I am writing in opposition to the Wing Island Boardwalk proposal. This plan would ruin the pristine vista, cause environmental problems, disrupt flora and fauna and forever change one of Brewster’s special spots. In addition it would bring more traffic , parking problems, port-a-potty and trash problems. We taxpayers have just invested wisely in the Cape Cod Sea Camp. There is still much to do there. Focus on that and leave the unspoiled Wing Island unspoiled. Best, Rosemary Lappin Mooney 70 Hazel Lane Brewster ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Brian Mooney <bmooney7@comcast.net> Dear Select Board Members: I have been following the debate about the proposal to erect a boardwalk link to Wing Island and urge board members to slow down or disregard outright the proposal, at least in its current form. This is one of the great unspoiled assets that make Brewster such a distinct and beautiful place. The marsh vista, the woodlands, and the pristine bayside beach distill within one walkable stretch the essence of the town's character and appeal. It's a precious civic jewel. I walk there often. At the very least, the proposal needs a rigorously thorough environmental impact assessment. The potential for unintended and damaging consequences is enormous. Moreover, any available public resources and attention should be devoted to the former Sea Camps properties, which I believe is a much higher priority. Thank you for your consideration and public service. Yours truly, Brian C. Mooney 70 Hazel Lane Brewster Sent from my iPhone ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ John and Carole <jdvcam@gmail.com> There is no reason to put a boardwalk on Wing Island. Any more foot traffic will degrade the Island, which is already a sensitive endangered ecosystem. Take a good look at what happened to Paine's Creek after the new culvert was installed. The smaller marsh area that had been closed off was picturesque and pristine and is now a mess after beachgoers have trampled the dune grass and other vegetation. And the entire creek itself is basically a lake with a tide. It's been nearly ten years since the major storm damage and I'm still picking up piles of asphalt from the marsh. Leave Wing Island the way it is. John and Carole Virzi Melinda Moon mememoon@comcast.net To the Town of Brewster: I am against the building of this boardwalk. Wing Island is a special place that deserves to be kept it in its current state. Adding a huge boardwalk here would not be in keeping with “conservation” at all. If the town would like more accessible beaches for all then how about building some board walks to already many public beaches we have in town. Building this boardwalk will destroy a pristine part of our town. It’s a migratory bird sanctuary, a bird banding area and needs to kept as such. I’m sure there are many other uses for the money that was donated. Please don’t build this boardwalk. Please log onto Facebook (Brewster Ma Community Space) and read the many many comments from the residents of Brewster who oppose this. Carol Garvey <outlook_BA7AF574A3382906@outlook.com> What a wonderful improvement! The proposed boardwalk looks much safer and more navigable than the current one, which cannot be used at high tide. Having the trail connect with Drummer Boy is terrific – it should help alleviate parking around CCMNH. I have been coming to Brewster for 80 years and I believe that the proposed changes would be very positive, making nature more accessible without undermining the environment. Carol W. Garvey 122 Brier Lane Sent from Mail for Windows Alex <wentworthmotorsports@comcast.net> I am in opposition to the wing island boardwalk project, I believe our natural areas for conservation should be left alone, not all conservation areas should be accessible to all. If that is done then the whole point of conserving nature as it is is lost, more feet on the ground will inevitably deteriorate those conditions. We have a lot of accessible to all land in Brewster as it is, and although I am all for that in a lot of areas, it is not appropriate in all situations. Thank You anevins@verizon.net You did not adequately address the issue of increased use of WI having an impact on refuse, need for toilets, and possibly partying on the island. Unrealistic to think that folk are going to go back to Drummer Boy to use the toilets. How will refuse be picked up? How will the island be policed to prevent partying by summer visitors? And, you are right that people who are mobility impaired will probably NOT be able to use the boardwalk, particularly if the path to the boardwalk is not made safe and a cut is not made in the stone wall. But they do and will enjoy DB and use the path that is paved. Mobility impaired folk will need parking at DB. Will WI traffic take up all the available parking???? If mobility impaired folk can get to boardwalk will there be benches at the viewing sites where they can sit and rest??? David Lorenzi <dlorenzi@pareskyflitt.com> Hi This project makes sense on so many different levels, my wife and I am all for it. Please do not bend to a vocal minority. We are talking about a boardwalk, not a highway. I urge you to move forward with this project which will make Brewster an even more attractive community in which to visit and live. Best Regards, David D. Lorenzi, CPA Sharon Abreu <sabreu55@hotmail.com> I do not support the proposed boardwalk plans. It's too big and would have a negative impact on the vista. The current arrangement works fine. Please keep things the way they are. Sharon R Abreu 21 Old Cemetery Rd Mary Oneil <oneil.m@msn.com> Can you clarify what type of ‘additional’ parking is being considered for Drummer Boy Park? Are there any trail enhancements planned for Wing Island itself? Thanks, Mary O’Neil Sent from Mail for Windows hdpatashnick <hdpatashnick@gmail.com> Hello - I think your proposed boardwalk from Drummer Boy Park is a great idea, and I can't wait to use it myself. However, I agree with "Bonnie", who spoke twice, that the current boardwalk from the Museum is in need of raising and repair, or stabilizing. As was mentioned, it is often unavailable for walking, at high tide and does seem wobbly when two groups need to pass one another. Can this original boardwalk repair be wrapped into the current new boardwalk project? I know it will cost more, of course, but I think it should be considered. Certainly, one thing would have to be done first, but that just means there's a Part 1 and Part 2 to the entire project. I do think you have all done an incredible amount of background work, even to already looking at ways to fund the new project. I commend you for your dedication and many hours of work already into the project. I am Dorothy Patashnick, and my husband and I live on Whidah Way, Brewster. Susan LaPlant <eachdaygrtful@gmail.com> Good Afternoon, While I know there appears to be a lot of apposition to this boardwalk, I wanted to add my support for it. I have 2 boys with special needs and while one of them was able to do this walk one time, my other son would not be able to with the current configuration. Definitely would be nice to see it a more handicap accessible. thanks, Susan L Sturburidge Way Lee Roscoe <leeowl@gmail.com> Not sure it all should be a boardwalk which can be hard to negotiate, but connecting these parcels with earthen trails and boardwalk only where it is essential for difficult terrain or to pass over wet ways would be awesome. janice nelson <janicemnelson@hotmail.com> I do not want the boardwalk to be built from Drummer Boy to Wing Island. Peggy Jablonski <pegjab@gmail.com> Hal, Peter, and Cindy, I am writing to you as two board members of BCT, and the Select Board Chair, and people I respect and speak with about issues in town. I am extremely concerned, and opposed, to the size of the boardwalk proposed from the Museum of Natural History to Wing Island. That is one of the most iconic views in Brewster and it will be ruined with a Boardwalk of that size and complexity. Plus it would drop people on a sandy, uneven surface hundreds of yards from the beach. This would not be providing residents true access to the beach who are mobility impaired. The project could be 15 ‘ high, with several platforms listed at 20’x 16’, extremely large intrusions on the marsh. In addition more paved paths will go in from Drummer Boy Park. I believe this scope of a project is unnecessary and counter productive to conservation goals. We have good access to the beach via the First Light beach, Crosby, Paines, Linell Landing and other beaches. I understand there is a $1 Million donation from a private donor, who may get to name this historical place. I am extremely concerned about that process too. It seems because of a donation other town groups will not be weighing on on a critical project. I can’t understand how BCT and the Town would support this kind of project that clearly has a negative environmental impact, disrupts the views across Quivet marsh, could be swept away in a Nor’easter, and will cost the town additional money, now and in the future. Just like the Milstone road project that was over designed, I request the BCT and the Select Board go back to square one and rethink what is appropriate over the marsh. Sometimes, the answer is do nothing. Even if a funder wants to give you money for a project, the best choice may be not to accept it. I have a question: Will this come before Town meeting in the fall for approval? It appears not from the presentation. This is not in keeping with major projects in Town. Thank you for responding to my email. Peggy Jablonski 107 Crescent Lane Brewster, MA 919-923-6034 Janet Norton <janetlnorton@hotmail.com> As a long time resident of Brewster and one who appreciates our numerous natural attractions, I urge you to leave this parcel of our town as it is. It is fragile, ecologically important and there are multiple options for those looking for this view with accessibility for all. The town just purchased CCSC and the access to that portion of beach is fully paved and easily navigated. I have no “official” disability but due to age I certainly have “inabilities” which at times limit my activities. I find an alternative. Brewster offers 6-8 beaches along it’s coast, some with boardwalks to handicapped access and sand chairs are available. Please leave Wing Island and the surrounding marsh in it’s natural state. We cannot keep interfering and expect any other outcome but overuse, destruction and human indifference to what nature has provided. Thank you. Sent from Mail for Windows kate o <k_ellen25@hotmail.com> I am a native cape codder and proud brewster resident. I am very much opposed to this boardwalk idea to wing island from drummer boy park. I strongly feel we should leave it as it is and enjoy the beauty it holds from where we can see it. The trail to wing island from the museum gets you to the beach. It is nice that it is quiet and not overly used. There is absolutely no reason to add a boardwalk and disrupt the natural habitat the Marsh holds. The sea camps purchase just happened and any money the town wants to invest in should be to move forward with the sea camps plans and leave drummer boy and wing island alone. Thank you for your time. I truly hope this does not pass. I think our amazing town and people will make the right decision. Sincerely Kate O'Brien Sent from my Verizon, Samsung Galaxy smartphone Get Outlook for Android Tom O'Connor <tom552655@gmail.com> This is pristine nature as it should be. I can just see the marsh covered in trash, empty styrofoam coffee cups, plastic bags etc. How will you be able to stop people parking at Drummer Boy Park for free and going to the beach for a day with all the necessary coolers, strollers, and carts? Our grandchildren love our walks to Wing Island. Brewster is what is left of "old Cape Cod". Please protect what we have here. Christopher Ellis <chriscreganellis@gmail.com> Good afternoon, I wasn't able to attend the public forum on the Wing Island Boardwalk proposal this week, but I did review the presentation. I think it looks and sounds like a great idea that would be wonderful for Brewster. We have a beautiful Town, the museum and Drummer Boy area included. This plan is a wonderful way for people of all ages to enjoy the scenery of the land, to access the beach, to get around on foot and to exercise. Working with conservation groups to ensure that this project is handled safely and will not negatively impact the land or teh marsh is a responsible and commendable approach. My family just walked to Wing Island using the trail behind the museum on Saturday. While we enjoyed the walk, it was clear that the path and current boards could use some work. We look forward to this expansion, and will certainly be out there to walk early and often. I am well in favor of projects like these that promote pedestrian access and safety, and make the Town more appealing for residents and tourists as well. This is an exciting project, and I look forward to seeing it pan out. If I can help more, please let me know. Best, - Chris Walt Peterson <waltpete@bellsouth.net> Taxes, taxes, taxes, taxes, taxes, taxes. Etc., etc., etc. Nancy Ortiz <nancyortiz@comcast.net> Thank you for the informative presentation. The power point slides were very clear and well done. I am in favor of this project for many reasons: 1. This allows easy access to Wing Island from Drummer Boy Park without having to walk along busy 6A. 2. More people will be able to enjoy Wing Island. (I am always surprised by the number of residents who do not want to give public site access to the general population. I love seeing children on the beach, in the forest, etc. instead of in front of computers.) 3. Currently the handicap access from the Museum to Wing Island is difficult. This will allow easier handicap access from Drummer Boy Park. 4. Access to Wing Island will not have to be tide dependent. 5. The plan takes into consideration sea level rise. 6. The elevated boardwalk will be less disruptive to wildlife than the current planks. 7. Many are concerned the view will be affected. There are viewing stations along the boardwalk and also the portion from Drummer Boy to the Museum sidewalk is already wooded so I am not sure how it will be disrupted. Perhaps the view from the Museum to the Island will be effected, however, the advantages of access to more visitors outweighs the disadvantage. Thank you for all your work in drawing up the plans. Nancy Ortiz nancyortiz@comcast.net nancy.ortiz@brewsterponds.org previous volunteer at the BMNH Joan Moore <joanpmoore59@gmail.com> I am not in support of the proposed boardwalk. Joan Moore Rose Pye <rose.c.pye@gmail.com> Hello I have been a resident of Brewster since 2014, my husband since 1978. We are strongly opposed to this project for a number of reasons: environmental - size/scope of walkway including but not limited to the pilings, disruption of marsh during construction, impact of increased human traffic given an "easier" way to access traffic/density - this new boardwalk will attract more people to Drummer Boy park and the free beach access. What happens to a family who comes to the park for a picnic or to use the playground and can't park because all spaces are taken by people who use the new boardwalk to go to the beach for a day What if a project similar to this was proposed by a homeowner on 6A overlooking the marsh? I would be very surprised if it would be entertained at all due to the environmental impact - don't let the carrot of the anonymous million dollar donation cloud the impacts of this. The purchase of the Sea Camps has given the town much to work on - let's focus on maximizing that spectacular property (not to mention the 20+ million dollar cost) and table this for the foreseeable future. Rosemary Pye and Peter Driscoll 44 Ranney Lane Brewster Katie Sousa <sousak98@gmail.com> To Whom It May Concern, My name is Katie Sousa. I live at 177 Barons Way. I own my home, and have lived in Brewster since I was two years old. Having grown up in Brewster, it was very important to me to move back to this town that I love so much and raise my family here. I feel strongly about preserving our town’s natural resources, and I do not support increased access to any of them. The access that exists to Wing Island is sufficient. I believe that increasing access will only bring about further human destruction to the island. Again, let me be clear, I do not support any boardwalk or other form of increased access to Wing Island. I trust the elected officials in this town to make the decisions that are best, and hope they have an understanding that the pros of building such a boardwalk versus not building it do not carry equal weight. Yes, I understand that the boardwalk would give greater access to local residence and tourists alike. However, I think that will come at the huge and irreparable cost of destroying our towns beautiful land. In this particular circumstance I believe the cons of building a boardwalk outweigh the pros that might come from building it. Thank you for this opportunity to share my opinion on this project. BEN MCKELWAY <bmckelwa@hotmail.com> To Whom It May Concern: I wish the August 15th public forum on Zoom had been publicized more widely in advance. Earlier today I watched the recording of the entire presentation and all the comments. We hear so much talk about preserving the character of Brewster. For anyone who truly cares about the town’s character, who appreciates our town as a special place, who cares about wildlife, scenic views, etc.; to support this proposed massive, ugly monstrosity of a boardwalk would be absurd. First of all, I don’t understand how it could be allowed by the Brewster Conservation Commission, which is charged with protecting our sensitive wetlands. It’s called the Conservation Commission. Where is the conservation in this proposed project? Conservation is about protecting land from people, not trying to attract more people. All we need is for the existing planks to be raised a bit. One more thing: How outrageous it is that one individual would pay almost the entire cost of the project. That’s bribery, or something very like it, and is troublesome at best. Sincerely, Ben McKelway 1802 Main Street Brewster, MA 02631 Email: bmckelwa@hotmail.com Steven Westfahl <stevenwestfahl@gmail.com> Hi Brewster, I love this project and think that the boardwalk connecting the park to the existing one is a great idea. For this new boardwalk I would definitely thinks it’s a great idea to make a section or two along the way expand to the side so that a slower group walking could move to the side to let faster people pass. I feel that sometimes that can be an issue walking to wing island especially when groups have little kids. Thank you for all your hard work! Best, Steven Westfahl Jane johnson <Abbyj2626@comcast.net> After reviewing the recent presentation on the boardwalk I am not in favor of constructing a boardwalk from the Park. It seems this structure would out of place and harmful to our beautiful marsh! I am in favor of fixing the existing boardwalk to make it safer and more accessible. I would like to see a viewing deck looking out from Drummer Boy that would make it easy for someone with disabilities to enjoy the view. A small deck would do! We are a small town and need to keep our construction projects in symmetry with our size! Thanks for listening! Jane Johnson 1597 Long Pond Rd Brewster Ma 02631 Sent from my iPhone Avi Nagar <avi.nagar@verizon.net> Hello, I’m writing in support of the proposed project and boardwalk between Drummer Park and Wing Island. Watching the recent presentation and some of the raised concerns, I wanted to bring as a positive example the Hula reservation in Israel (https://en.parks.org.il/reserve-park/hula-nature-reserve/) This is a bigger reservation that is a way station for millions of migratory birds, and attracts a large number of visitors. If you do an image search for “Hula Israel reservation boardwalk” you can see it is similar to what is being proposed, and is a wonderful way to visit and enjoy the area. I fully agree that a boardwalk would enable visitors with limited mobility (elderly, young, handicapped etc.) to visit and enjoy the area. Such visitors cannot access the area today. Beach parking at Drummer park should be a parking enforcement issue, not an excuse against any project. Thanks, Avi Nagar 740 Lower Rd. Brewster BENJAMIN GREGSON <gregsons@verizon.net> I am very concerned about the increase traffic out to Wing Island that this bridge would cause. With the current set up, people are limited to low tide to get to the island. This provides some protection from too much traffic for both the wildlife and the environment. I would prefer to see a handicap assessable trail from the Drummer Boy Park that would lead to a viewing platform of the marsh but no bridge over to the island. I would be in favor of improving the current path across the marsh to the island but make it still only assessable at low tide. Nina Gregson 2500 Main Street Brewster MA 02631 Ceil Smith <smith.ceil@yahoo.com> Will visitors be able to park nearby? My previous experience is …you could not use museum parking on either side of 6A to access the walk. Ceil Smith bpwood7980@aol.com Hi, I am opposed to placing a boardwalk between Drummer Boy Park and the walk that leads to Wing Island. 1. It is not needed. You can already walk from Drummer Boy Park down the sidewalk on 6A to the entrance to the trail to Wing Island. 2. It is not needed and will adversely impact the marsh. 3. It will cost money that could be used other places and will need to be maintained. The money could be used to put a walk between the North side of Wing Island and the beach. 4. A not needed boardwalk will degrade the view of the marsh. Bill Wood Rick Draper <rickdraper@me.com> Dear Ben, I disagree with your position on the boardwalk issue. Preserving the character of the town seems a laudable goal but it is often cited in preventing changes that would improve the quality of life for people. “Character of the town” arguments were cited to prevent the creation of the Habitat For Humanity community on Paul Hush Way. It was a prime argument against legalizing cannabis shops and figured in the debate over sidewalks on Main Street. In preserving the character of the town there is a danger of creating a town that stagnates. It’s like going to a museum and looking at a 15th century dining room beautifully decorated with chairs that you can’t sit in and place settings that never have food on them. This is what happened to the borough in Pennsylvania where we used to live. Borough Council shot down every retail business that applied. All that was left when we moved were old deteriorating houses occupied by elderly people whose fondest memories dated to the 1950s. I’ve looked at the plans, documents and artists renderings and I do not see massive or ugly. This is a well thought out project that has been careful to protect the health of the wetlands. You may remember a while back that a long-standing boardwalk in Sandwich was destroyed in a storm. The town had a replacement designed that would be safer, sturdier and more accessible than the one that was destroyed. Of course many in the town were up in arms over the design. They wanted the old one repaired because they were fond of the look of it and tried to have it declared historically significant. Nostalgia can be a debilitating emotion. It is important to remember that Wing Island belongs to us as Brewster residents. Currently the only access to it is via private property, The Museum of Natural History. I believe that the museum is getting restive of people tramping through their property to access the island. It is only recently that the museum has restricted their parking lot to museum users and directed island bound people to park at Drummer Boy. The existing planks cannot “be raised a bit”. As it is, they are constantly shifting so raising them would require putting in footings to support them which then becomes a boardwalk. Further I don’t know how much is “a bit”. During a couple of king tides we have kayaked over those planks. They were at least four feet below us. The Brewster Conservation Commission is charged with providing “ecological and environmental protection through resource management”. They are in the business of making sure that our natural resources are used wisely and sustainably; not closing areas to the public. Both the conservation commission and Brewster Conservation Trust support this project because it provides responsible and sustainable access to Brewster residents and visitors. The donor has opted to be anonymous so we don’t know anything about them. The conjecture about nefarious intent is only conjecture and is fueled by baseless conspiracy theories which seems to be a disease infecting our society today. I hope you’ll take a breath and a step back. To paraphrase something you once said to me, I admire your passion but I think you’re wrong on this one. Rick Draper 288 Whiffletree Ave Brewster, MA 02631 Ben McKelway <bmckelwa@hotmail.com> Thank you for taking the time to write such a comprehensive reply. I’m trying to prevent Brewster from becoming, step-by-step, a big strip mall like most of America. Before you know it, it has happened. Pave paradise and put up a parking lot, as Joni warned us. Or, in this case, a massive double walkway over a sensitive salt marsh. I chose to live in Brewster because it is different. So, naturally, I’d like it to stay different. There must be a way to put the museum at ease by purchasing an easement just west of the existing planks and slightly altering their angle, or something along those lines. If it’s too wet to walk to the island, so be it. I am disgusted by the paving of the paths at Drummer Boy. And we know that’s what will be next for the Wing Island trails if this project goes through, once wheel-chair users start complaining that they got stuck in the dirt at the end of the new boardwalk. Ben Patricia Hardie <pah11111@verizon.net> To whom it may concern, I see that you are asking for input on the “design” of the boardwalk. Does this mean it is a done deal? As a resident, my concern is that Wing Island is a quiet refuge for locals to get away from people. Improving access means many more people and dogs getting to the island. The environmental impact that concerns me is people and dogs. Patricia Hardie 48 Aunt Molls Ridge Road Sent from my iPhone Stephen Higgins <chefhigby@gmail.com> Hello, Steve Higgins a 30 year resident and home owner of Brewster here to voice a strong please don't build any boardwalk in our town. It's totally unnecessary, expensive and will require constant upkeep and repair. Dumb idea and please focus on what to do with the Sea Camp purchase instead of wasting money on this eye sore,! Tony Zeller <arzeller@comcast.net> Hello, I am writing in opposition to the proposed Wing Island Boardwalk Project. Based on the public forum presentation, August 15, 2022 - the scope, impact and cost are too intrusive and expensive. The project will spoil the pristine view of the marsh and create an eyesore as well as a maintenance headache for years to come. It will have an adverse impact on the marsh and Wing Island by allowing greater access to an already fragile environment. While the proposed boardwalk makes handicap accessibility easier, there is no accommodation (yet) once you reach the island as the pathways on the island are not ADA compliant. Increased traffic on those narrow trails will result in severe erosion and damage. The attraction of more summer visitors to the island will result in more litter, noise, partying, alcohol/drug use, dogs running off-leash, dog waste, human waste and upset nesting birds and other creatures (hardly a conservation benefit). Is Mass Audubon on-board with this? The construction alone is likely to have an adverse and long-term impact on the ecology of the marsh and the creatures living there. The marsh is a fragile environment providing a critical buffer to rising tides. I am very surprised that something like this boardwalk project would be proposed at all in the face of the climate change emergency. Should we be building structures in places which we know will be underwater in the coming decade and subject to the more powerful storms and tidal surges predicted? It makes no sense. The cost of this project is also an issue. Property taxes are constantly rising in Brewster, and even though an offer of a million dollar donation has been made, it is not sufficient to cover the construction and on- going never-ending maintenance costs the town will be responsible for. There is no use fee structure included to offset the costs. What happens when a winter storm damages the boardwalk (like what happened in Sandwich); who pays for the repairs - answer probably the Brewster tax payer! For all these reasons and many more, put me down in the opposed column and stop further consideration of this project. It is not what we need in Brewster. Tony Zeller 74 Wildwood Road Brewster Robert Stefano <rstefano524@gmail.com> Build the new boardwalk. Beth Finch <bbbethoncape@comcast.net> This is a lot of money for so little return. The walk across the marsh should be raised, but walking the sidewalk between Drummer Boy and the Wing Island trail is not difficult. Let’s not spend money that could be used better on a project that could further damage the marsh. Suzanne Kenney <suzanne.kenney@gmail.com> I was very enthusiastic when I first heard about the proposed boardwalk extending from Drummer Boy Park to Wing Island. I’m a daily visitor of the park, a destination that I think is a Brewster best but after last week’s presentation, I only have questions and concerns. I marvel at the multi-use of the park by residents and visitors but in the last year the amount of cars that park at Drummer Boy has increased substantially although the owners of the car are often no where to be found leaving me with concerns. My assumption is they’ve taken their beach gear and headed to Wing Island via easier access on the sidewalk along Rt. 6A. A boardwalk (and many of the proposed changes) that grants more access of the vistas for those with mobility challenges is the best reason in my opinion for a boardwalk but why connect it to Wing Island, a natural treasure and one that should be protected by human overuse. Those with such challenges will not be able to finish the walk on the island but there will be so many who will visit the island and perhaps spend much of the day there. Those who want to walk the mile and a half from the park can do that now without a boardwalk but the boardwalk will certainly be more of a draw, more people, more issues. Questions arise on how will the town monitor who is parking at the park and for how long? Will we be okay that people use the beach for free when other beaches require payment? With additional use of Wing Island for extended periods of time without bathroom facilities, what will be the impact? What will be the impact with more use if only for a few hours, regarding disposal of trash, people trampling on plants and dunes? Will there be adequate signage to ask all to be responsible in using a natural resource, and will that be enough, or do we need to have individuals monitoring area? Why not just have the elevated boardwalk grant an expanded view of the bay and island? The current wooden planks across the marsh can be replaced with an improved structure but why attach them to a boardwalk? What is the goal of a boardwalk that goes to the island if access is already available? All said, a final note. I do appreciate the thought given by public officials of the town and the advisory committee for their proposal to provide improved public access to a natural resource for our enjoyment. Thank you! I further appreciate clarification to my concerns. Suzanne Kenney 571 Run Hill Road Brewster, MA 02631 Josie Curley <josiecurley@gmail.com> I watched the August 15th meeting recording and reviewed the presentation materials. While I support providing access to Wing Island from Drummer Boy Park, I feel the scale of the project is not in keeping with the beautiful natural area of the marsh. The marsh should be protected from development as it is a special resource both ecologically and for the natural beauty of the vista. Planning around the tides is a part of the connection to nature when visiting the island. I had hoped that a narrow path could be made from Drummer Boy Park to the existing planks close to the edge of Drummer Boy and Cape Cod Museum land. Certainly not running through the center of the marsh as shown in the presentation. I support a viewing platform near Drummer Boy Park which should be ADA compliant. If it is necessary for any new construction to meet ADA requirements and thus be 10 ft wide I suggest either doing nothing or making small improvements to the existing path. Please consider scaling back this project. Josie Curley josiecurley@gmail.com 508 254 3172 Andrea Kramer <andrea@kramerlawllc.com> Hello, thank you for the opportunity to comment on the proposed boardwalk to Wing Island. I am a half-time Brewster resident. I own a home at 28 South Pond Drive, where I live half the week with my parents, who live here full-time. Overall, I fully support the idea of building a new boardwalk, raised above the marsh. Thank you to all who worked on this. You have done a good job. I do, however, have a few concerns and comments. First, is there a way to move the section that is designed to run from Drummer Boy to the main section a bit further south, perhaps running a bit more parallel to the wood area along the Town of Brewster conservation land? The engineer who spoke during the presentation stated that the location of that section was still to be determined. The path shown on the current plan seems to be about the most intrusive one possible. If the walkway were closer to the trees, it might not be as intrusive. Second, as for the increased usage of Wing Island and the beach, I am not terribly concerned. Even with the improved boardwalk, the trail along Wing Island is not terribly accessible, and it’s still a trek to the beach. Yes, there will be some increase in traffic, particularly as compared to high-tide traffic since it is currently not accessible during high tide, but I don’t see the boardwalk as significantly increasing traffic to the beach over what it is now. I don’t see why it would be more popular than Spruce Hill trail, which is relatively unused. And on the other side, the wear and tear of the marsh along the current boardwalk to Wing Island is troubling. I am pleased to hear that that there will be an effort to regrow the lost vegetation there after the new boardwalk is built. In similar fashion, I am in agreement with Lucy Van Horn, who spoke during the forum, about the increased accessibility for residents. My elderly parents, who are full-time residents of Brewster and physically disabled, cannot access the gorgeous vistas of the marsh but would definitely do so if they could access the boardwalk. I have also had friends visit with children, who cannot access the trail easily. I have long wanted to share this wonderful area with them. Third, I am concerned about trash. There is already trash, but it seems likely that a raised boardwalk will lead to more trash than the current path does. I wonder whether some of the resources currently used to maintain the wood planks could be reallocated to cleaning trash. I also encourage the town to put trash receptacles along the boardwalk, particularly at viewing stations. Fourth, has the town obtained any information from other places that have boardwalks (such as the National Seashore, Sandwich, Yarmouth (Gray’s Beach), Eastham (Fort Hill), and Harwich Conservation Trust (A. Janet DeFulvio Wildlife Sanctuary Boardwalk)) about their experiences? It would be great to know their experiences in terms of usage, trash, comments about views, impact on flora and fauna, environmental issues, etc. Lastly, while the design team seems to have done a good and thoughtful job, I would suggest that the town consider designs other than the ones proposed by the engineers, in terms of both the course of the boardwalk and the design of the sides (the current options of which all seem too intrusive). Although engineers, construction contractors, and designers often have interesting and useful ideas, I have seen first-hand during recent home renovation projects that too often they do not consider universal-design and use-centered concerns sufficiently. That is, too often they design based on engineering principles and concepts without sufficient attention to how people actually use the space. Residents may have good ideas for designs that take into account some of those other concerns. Again, thank you for the opportunity to comment and for all the work you have done. I’m looking forward to being able to use that trail – one of my favorites for the last 20 years – even during high tide, Andrea Kramer Denise <denisewrites@gmail.com> I've watched the video on the website and have some questions. If the town will place conservation restrictions on Wing Island after this project is complete, then shouldn't an environmental impact study be done before the project starts? It seems a little late to realize the island could be irreparably harmed only after people are there in droves. Why would they be there in droves? Free parking at Drummer Boy, free beach access - including for all tourists. As it is, there is a tourist bus that stops at the windmill, so there could be more time spent to walk to the island in the future. Has this been looked at? Given that the taxpayers of Brewster just spent $20,000,000 for the sea camps, doesn't it make sense to develop that property for residents rather than build a bridge for tourists? Surely there could be more accessibility adjustments made for First Light beach. If someone has $1million to spare, there are surely more important things to be done for the town than this walkway. On that note, it seems it's a person from Dennis who is "donating" the money for the walkway in order to have naming rights. This is just appalling. I'm sure there are people in town who don't want any part of the Trump Victory Bridge or the Biden 2024 Bridge. So first of all, why are we using another person's money? Did the town learn nothing from the Sea Camps vote? I.e., We don't want private people involved in public town beaches. Why on earth would you give away naming rights??? 501 people sounding off about developing Wing Island is hardly a screaming majority of the town. I know you have things posted at the library and the town hall, but that's not much of an outreach when you have most of our email addresses. I'll surely be at the town meeting and next meeting regarding this project. Denise Desplaines Timberlane Drive Brewster Carol Marcy <drcarolmarcy@gmail.com> I do not like the idea of a high 10 foot wide boardwalk traversing the marsh for several reasons and I have several suggestions. I lead Forest Bathing walks for the Museum of Natural History. These are quiet, slow moving, meditative walks that teach participants to pay attention to nature through awareness and sensory experience. The purpose is to understand that we are an integral part of nature, not separate from it. I also teach them some of the science behind why this practice is so beneficial for our health and wellbeing. 1. The marsh is pristinely beautiful and full of life. The boardwalk would be immensely disruptive to both. You say that the marsh will be left basically undisturbed. Think of the trash people will bring with them that will end up in the marsh, unretrievable. The wildlife, osprey, deer, water birds, crabs, fish, etc. who have made that place their home will be displaced. 2. The museum runs a number of programs that make full use of Wing Island. To bring more people onto the island would be disruptive to the children's camps, to the mudflat programs, certainly to the peace and quiet needed for Forest Bathing, for the educational Field guide walks and the bird banding research that goes on to name a few. People have access to those trails now. They can walk over from Drummer Boy. The trails on Wing Island are not made for wheelchair access. Making them so would disrupt the integrity of the island. 3. If you want people with disabilities to experience the marsh, build access at the base of the Drummer Boy trail to a very nice observation platform there with educational materials and binoculars as a part of it. 4. I believe that the Sea Camps property was acquired after this boardwalk proposal was made. It seems to me that money would be much better spent fixing up this new property in a way that will provide a lot of possible activities for people with disabilities much more easily. 5. Another issue that needs to be addressed at Drummer Boy is parking. Right now a lot of people make use of the museum parking lot that is on their property in order to access the beach. Those people need to have a place to park at Drummer Boy or use the Sea Camps beach where there's plenty of parking. Thank you for hearing my concerns. Carol Marcy Drcarolmarcy@gmail.com ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Jill Maraghy <jillmaraghy@gmail.com> Please do not build a giant boardwalk to Wing island. There are too many man made structures in Brewster as it is. The plank path from the Museum of Natural History is delightfully rickety and just the right amount of adversity. Kids love it. People can go to Sandwich and enjoy their giant man made boardwalk. We don’t want one here. Concentrate on the sea camps. Make use of all those man made structures. Name one of the buildings after this big donor from Dennis so he can have his legacy. Please do not do not build this boardwalk. Please do not ruin another nature spot in Brewster. Thanks, Jill and Rob Maraghy Gail and Mike Bjornholm <gm.bjornholm@gmail.com> 1. Do as little damage as possible to the marsh ecosystem 2. Consider a free-standing wing with benches about half way across for relaxation and rest. 3. Consider the impact on the dune area. Mitigate potential problems. Thank you, Mike Sue Johnson <sue.sg.johnson@gmail.com> To whom it may concern: Thank you for the opportunity to provide comments on the 8/15/2022 Drummer Boy Park to Wing Island boardwalk presentation. Many of the questions and comments at the end of the presentation expressed concerns about the scale of the project, its impact on the marsh itself - both environmental and visual, the possibility (to be realistic, the likelihood) that Drummer Boy Park and Wing Island would become a magnet for people from all over the Cape looking for free beach access and parking, among other concerns. I too share all these concerns. I also believe that there is a simpler, less costly way to address the goals which the boardwalk design was intended to provide. That is to construct a viewing platform at the end of the walkway which is to be constructed on Brewster Conservation Land and a new boardwalk to replace the existing planks behind the museum. The 6 goals of the project would still be accomplished: 1. Improve accessibility - For people in wheelchairs or otherwise mobility-impaired, the viewing platform would give them access to the marsh view. The new boardwalk behind the museum could be designed to allow for wheelchair access from the sidewalk on route 6A all the way across to Wing Island. It has already been acknowledged that individuals with mobility issues are unlikely to go on the Wing Island trails themselves so a viewing platform and decks along the boardwalk should suffice for access to marsh views. And replacing the planks with a new boardwalk would provide access to those trying to reach the Wing Island trails and beach as well as address the problem of foot traffic in the marsh itself. 2. Connect open space properties - Drummer Boy Park is already connected to Wing Island via the sidewalk along route 6A and the path to the existing plank boardwalk. Completion of an accessible path to a viewing platform of the marsh would connect Drummer Boy Park to the conservation land to its east. 3. and 4. Improve user experience and preserve habitat- Installing a new boardwalk above the existing planks that incorporates decks and raises it above high tide levels does this. 5.Climate change adaptation - One new boardwalk behind the museum can be designed with climate change in mind. Whether it needs to be as high above sea level as proposed is open to question. For instance, by 2070 what will be left of Wing Island? Do we have to build something to last that long? Won't the ramp sloping down to the island be underwater at that point? 6.Safety - replacing the existing planks with a new boardwalk will address this issue. I believe the proposed 10 foot width of the boardwalk could be scaled back considerably. A width of 6 feet should be more than enough to accomodate 2 wheelchairs passing each other, and maybe could be narrower if there are viewing platforms that can act as passing lanes. In terms of the width and height of the boardwalk, and the railing materials I feel that the goal should be to minimize the visual impact on the view of the marsh, from both the museum side and the Wing Island side. In summary, I believe that a much scaled back boardwalk to Wing Island from CCMNH (replacing the existing wood planks) with improvements to make the path to route 6A accessible would satisfy all the goals of the project and negate the need for an additional boardwalk over the marsh from Drummer Boy Park. Construction of an accessible path from Drummer Boy Park through the conservation land to a viewing platform of the marsh would provide sufficient access to marsh views. There are still many issues to be addressed. Even with a scaled-back plan for access to Wing Island, there will be more people going there. How is parking going to be controlled? Will Drummer Boy Park end up being the parking lot for Wing Island Beach, necessitating entrance fees and parking lot monitors? With surrounding towns becoming more restrictive about beach parking (e.g. Dennis), will the spill-over end up in our town? Then there's the issue of bathrooms, trash, who monitors for midnight beach parties, etc. etc. All of this means more expense for Brewster tax payers, unless an alternate source of funding can be found. Thank you for this opportunity to respond to the plans for Drummer Boy Park and Wing Island. Sincerely, Sue Johnson 43 Scarborough Road Brewster, MA 978-201-4017 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Mary Oneil <oneil.m@msn.com> To: Town of Brewster From: Mary O’Neil Eagle Wing Lane Brewster, MA 02631 While I support the goals of this project, I would like to propose a different approach that takes into account the words of John Hay, i.e., "We can thank the marsh for all its transformations, and above all its constancy." Constancy, meaning being faithful and dependable with qualities of 'enduring and unchanging.’ As a 50-year resident of Brewster, Quivett Marsh and the view from both Wing Island and the Drummer Boy Park are just that: enduring and unchanging. As such, they represent one of the more primary goals of any coastal project and also reflect the Town of Brewster Vision Statement which has the majority approval of residents: “We work to preserve the rural, small town feel of Brewster created by low density development and open space, which contributes to protecting water resources and providing scenic areas for recreation and contemplation”. I think the current proposal to build tall, 10-foot wide, walled boardwalks, crisscrossing Quivett Marsh goes against the essence of John Hay and this Vision statement and would destroy the amazing scenic area we love. As it is, it attracts many people to Brewster. I often think of the town as book-marked by Quivett Marsh on one end and Namskaket marsh on the other. We have provided access to Namkaket without destroying it, let's do the same with Quivett. As a former member of the Coastal Adaption Strategy Committee and also the Brewster Coastal Management Plan Committee I can point to other statements that support an alternate approach to access at Drummer Boy and Wing Island. Coastal Adaption Strategy: “Expand access…in ways that preserve the natural habitat and respect the overall coastal and land based ecosystems. Including wildlife habitat and salt marshes” Brewster Coastal Management Plan: “Preserve coastal landforms and vegetation” and “identify measures to improve visual access” Further, Quivett Marsh is part of a much larger, unimpeded marsh eco-system ranging from Barnstable to the tip of Provincetown. I don’t see the need to make a permanent scar across this landform from Drummer Boy to the Wing Island trail. As someone said, it is a kind of visual pollution. I also caution that building this boardwalk would establish a precedent that the Town would find challenging to get around in the future if other proposals for boardwalks are made. I have made several trips to the Drummer Boy Park with this plan in hand and propose a few alternate pathways for consideration: 1.End the access boardwalk from Drummer Boy Park with the viewing platform. (see slide number 24 in the presentation) This gives the visitor the same viewing experience of the expanse of the marsh as does the existing Wing Island boardwalk. One could extend this boardwalk westward along the edge of Drummer Boy and circle back to the park through the woods. This would replicate the Wing Island experience in a modified way. 2. Further, for those with limited mobility who still want to access the Wing Island Boardwalk, the Museum could add additional handicapped parking. Perhaps they could also put a gate, or park and pay machine at the entrance requiring any car to pay a parking fee upon entering, or have a Brewster beach sticker at least through the 10 weeks of high demand: July 4 – Labor Day. 3.The Museum could also post a sign indicating that ‘overflow’ parking is available at Drummer Boy Park. People use this now as an alternative. 4. The improved boardwalk from the museum to Wing Island needs to be modified to be less intrusive, i.e., 4’ or just enough for one wheelchair, with two wider side spaces to ‘pull over’ if two are coming at the same time. This is what was done successfully at the Red Maple Swamp, Fort Hill, Orleans. Trash receptacles are essential. Lastly, I question the role of the anonymous donor. Are they contributing for this particular design only? Would they support an adjustment? Is the money just for this project or can Brewster use it for other coastal projects? From comments I have heard, this seems to be source of concern. I am guessing that this donation has been offered as a way of helping us meet our overall goals, regardless of what specific plan the town adopts. However, it would be in all of our interest to clarify this latter point. If for any reason the donor is being given input into the planning and implementation of the proposal, and the commitment to the funding is dependent on any specific outcome of the planning process, that would alter the altruistic character of what they are offering, and would truly make the donation problematic. As I have heard questions about this in the community, it would be helpful to clarify these issues. My modified plan would certainly cost less and it has been suggested to me that the donor may be willing to support additional family memberships to the Museum with any funds saved. Thank you for your consideration, Mary O’Neil ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Joan Moore <joanpmoore59@gmail.com> We do not support the building of the new boardwalk. The design is too invasive. Joan Moore Larry Moore 32 Clark Rd Brewster Nancy Whitehurst <nancywhitehurst@realtyexecutives.com> My first comment to the 8/15 presentation is that 501 is 78% of 642 which is less than 10% of the Brewster adult population so I question the effort that went in to reaching residents for the survey opinions provided. I like the idea of the town parcels connecting for those who can enjoy the walk but it seems like cherishing this special environment and providing access to more people is counterintuitive. Could a smaller, shorter handicap accessible boardwalk from the Drummer Boy area to a viewing platform be an option. -- NANCY M. WHITEHURST Broker Associate 15 Cape Lane, Brewster MA 02631 774-238-0017 call or text MA Broker license # 13156 Annie Dugan <annie65@me.com> All, It seems there always exists a few naysayers who, no matter what the Town does to improve its beauty, it’s accessibility to valuable features or it’s decisions to protect resources, this group spins its Henny Penny theme, using the current plans to sow doubt. There is simply no good reason to obstruct the completion of the boardwalk that will protect and fortify access to such a beautiful area. All of us who live in Brewster should all be able to share its unique offerings, safely and securely. I can’t imagine that there would not be many months of the year where no one would be about to disturb a halcyon scene ripe for memorializing in ones chosen art form. Thank you for your due diligence in this worthwhile project. Respectfully submitted, Annie Campbell Dugan 173 Beach Plum La Elizabeth Perry <lizprints@gmail.com> Hi - We are wondering if there has been feasibility study done for the Proposed Boardwalk to Wing island? We think there has not been enough of a study done on how this boardwalk would effect Wing Island and the surrounding habitat, and also, the projected costs for construction and upkeep of the boardwalk. Sincerely, Liz Perry and Carl Ahlstrom 80 Blue Jacket Way Brewster D B <dbyers14@gmail.com> A brewster resident of 6 years, I am writing in support of the project. Diane Byers Dutch C Wegman <dwegman@whoi.edu> Hello, Please count Dutch and Laurie Wegman as being opposed to the proposed board walk project. Our objection is to the increased traffic, conversion of the Drummer Boy area into a parking lot and the negative impact to the sensitive marsh environment. The current description of the project describes the benefits to locals but we feel that the biggest number of users will be by out of towners and tourists, many who will not respect the fragile environment and Brewsterites. Thank you for the opportunity to express our opinion on this matter. Regards, Laurie and Dutch Wegman 604 Slough Rd. Susan Swartzlander <sueswartzlander@gmail.com> I was one of the 78% who thought improving the existing boardwalk was a good idea (after all, it is often under water and is narrow), but I had no idea what improvement meant in the eyes of the Conservation Department. The reveal of the design in the public forum shocked me. That boardwalk (bridge?) will ruin any sweeping views of the marsh. The human made structure will dominate the nature which surrounds it. I thought conservation meant preserving the environment we live in, rather than putting our (very large and high) mark on it. We have already put our mark on too many beautiful places in Brewster by expanding parking lots and obscuring views. I also think Drummer Boy Park should not be turned into a parking lot for the proposed bridge. I used to see there a sweeping view down to the bay. I noticed even that area is now cut across by stakes and rope or fencing of some sort. In addition, I have concerns about making it easier for large numbers of people to access more of our fragile environments. I used to love to do bird photography at a nearby conservation area. With a huge influx of people in recent years, I have frequently had overly friendly, as well as aggressive, dogs jump on me while clueless owners ambled along later. I see so much garbage and dog dirt on the trail and in the marsh there, and, at times, people and dogs do disturb the wildlife. It no longer is a place to enjoy and appreciate nature in the same way it was a few years ago. I envision a similar fate for Wing Island. There is a substantial environmental cost to developing a natural area as you propose. We already have over developed some of our other areas. I am sympathetic to creating spaces for people of all abilities. However, there still isn’t (and can’t be) wheelchair access on the trails the huge bridge leads to. There are some more developed areas with large parking lots and restrooms. Maybe we could look at one of those places to create accessible walkways without imposing new demands on a fragile environment. There’s a reason why every national park considers carefully what areas will get some infrastructure and which should remain more isolated from throngs of people. We’ll regret directing more people to Wing Island, and we’ll regret the white elephant bridge if the project goes ahead. Thanks for considering my view. Sue Swartzlander 59 Misty Lane Brewster Susan Spencer <suebrewster@comcast.net> Dear Select Board, I have been a homeowner at 84 Seamans Lane for more than 18 years. My kids volunteered and later worked at Cape Cod Museum of Natural History in the summers and we have loved exploring the grounds and Wing Island. My daughter even participated in the archeological dig there. I support a plan to connect Drummer Boy Park to the island in as environmentally and aesthetically sensitive a way as possible. The current path and planks are hazardous to many, particularly residents with impaired mobility but also to families trying to make their way with little ones. I think the proposed boardwalk looks reasonable and the benefits for people of all ages/abilities to peacefully enjoy our natural beauty outweigh the minor visual change to the vista. Thank you, Susan Spencer 84 Seamans Lane Brewster 508-612-3792 Barbara Bradley <capebradley@aol.com> Dear Board, I am against this project. Just because Wing Island is difficult to get to does not mean that a large structure must be built over a fragile marsh so that everyone can get there! I walk the beaches daily every winter and the amount of trash left there is disgusting. There are no receptacles for trash on the beaches during the winter. The same thing will happen to Wing Island. Humans have succeeded in taking away the majority of spaces for wildlife to exist and now Brewster apparently wants to join the group. It is a quiet and beautiful place but that will change once it’s an easy walk. You state that a majority of people in your survey want this boardwalk to be built. 800 people is not a majority of Brewster residents and if the project had been described in detail in the survey I certainly would not have agreed. Your description was a vague question about access to Wing Island, certainly not the project you are trying to impose on the residents of Brewster. This is too important a project to be built without a vote from Brewster residents. Sincerely Barbara Bradley 101 Old Valley Road Brewster Sarah Sheehan <sarah.sheehan@mac.com> I've had a chance to go over the boardwalk proposal and must write to let you know this full time resident / homeowner is against it. I'm sure others will be listing similar reasons also so I needn't go into a lot of detail, but in short - we have a lot of nature in this town and a lot of people who enjoy getting out into it but there should be some areas which are a bit more limited and one of them is this marsh. Looking out across that expanse is so beautiful as it changes with the tides and seasons and having human construction out into it bringing more people to drop plastic sippy cups, bits of paper, wrappers, loud noises on into what is currently a less travelled space just isn't right. Let it remain natural. Yes, the boards are only usable during low tide. Yes, it's not easy (and also not impossible, actually, as I have seen it done) getting a wheelchair out there. Yes, it's not supporting a thousand tourists with benches and places for taking photos. It's nature and you can view its unbroken beauty from the edges with wildlife not pushed away by human noise or harmed by blown trash. Not everything needs to be experienced by placing yourself into the center, and some wonderful things are ruined when you do - such as that grand view of unbroken marsh. Another thing, I see in the Cape Cod Chronicle that those of us who attended and voted for the Drummer Boy Park improvements plan last fall approved this plan. no, not all of us. I voted for it based on what I understood of the master plan online at the town's website, which I just looked at again. No big boardwalk across the marsh is drawn there or listed as a line item that I see. I would have never voted for it if that were made clear and I am not convinced that the journalist got that "fact" right. Sarah Sheehan 88 Chestnut Circle Brewster, MA Peggy Barons <peggy.barons@gmail.com> My husband and I are homeowners in Brewster and we are in favor of the proposal to construct a boardwalk out to Wing Island. We love the idea of connecting existing trails and parks and exposing residents to the beautiful surroundings and wildlife while respecting the environment. We appreciate all the research done to facilitate minimal impact on the wildlife in the area. We also love the accessibility for those unable to navigate the current wooden planks. Our grandchildren visit often, sometimes with their 3-year-old friend, Brady who his paralyzed from the waist down. Brady has a tiny wheel chair and knowing that the next time they visit the butterfly museum, they could include him on a stroll out to Wing Island would be a miracle in action. Thank you for giving us the opportunity to have some input. We hope you will consider voting YES on this project! Mark & Peggy Barons 66 Trevor Lane Brewster, MA Alice Plouchard Stelzer <aliceplouchardstelzer@gmail.com> I think the boardwalk is a great idea, especially since it will give the elderly a place to walk!-- Alice C. Stelzer Stephanie Lewis <stephaniemeganlewis@gmail.com> Please do not build a boardwalk over the marsh- this will cause undue and UNNECESSARY destruction to fragile habitats and ecosystem and is not needed! Brewster already has many spaces to view our beautiful nature, many of them already handicap accessible. There is no need to disturb more of our land! Please do not build this boardwalk. Stephanie Lewis 159 Owl Pond Road, Brewster JOAN MOORE <lmoore169@comcast.net> Hello, 1) It raises concern that the private donor is classified as anonymous without knowing the terms of that condition. 2) Couldn't the donor gift to the museum with stipulation that the funds are to be applied to improving access to Wing Island. This could include improvements to the parking area south of 6A and crosswalk upgrades. 3) I am against the project for aesthetic reasons. It is a beautiful unadulterated view from 6A I am against the construction of a boardwalk from Drummer Boy to Wing Island Larry Moore Full time resident Diana King <dianaking58@icloud.com> Hello, My thoughts would be to NOT build a trail system with boardwalks to Wing Island via Drummer park. My children and I have used the museum trail for many years to access Wing Island, and just brought my grandchildren out that way as well. If monies were to be appropriated, we would like to see the money used to enhance the museum trails. We truly believe that less is more in this case. Thank you for taking the time to hear our opinions. Many thanks, John and Diana King Paines Creek Rd Bill Henchy <whenchy@henchylaw.com> I am writing on the Wing Island / Drummer Boy project. Please mark me down as opposed as presently presented. Can you please tell me if any further Town Meeting action will be taken on this issue? I voted in favor of design funds as a FinComm member as well as at Town Meeting based on your statement to me during a Fin Comm meeting that the funds were for design only and no decision to proceed had been made. So—will this come to Town Meeting before any construction is allowed? Assuming that no further appropriations are required for the project, in whatever final design comes into being, will the decision to build it be made by Town Meeting, or by a Town Board with statutory control over the land, i.e. Conservation Commission (c. 40 sec, 8C) or the select board (plenary control of municipal land)? As far as non-binary feedback, my own personal view would be that there should be no boardwalk connecting the Drummer Boy and Wing Island—there is a nice ADR compliant sidewalk that connects the Drummer Boy and the Town Land in the Stony Brook Valley—and that any improvement to the present Wing Island access should be the very minimal height and width to get the boards off the salt marsh and above the mean high tide. My view is that we have multiple access points to Town beaches and Town land, and that this one its unique in its remoteness, beauty, and vistas from many public places. The proposed project, with 20’ helix screws every ten-15 feet, elevated to 15’ NGVD and 10’ wide with viewing turn-outs is excessive, will be a blight on a beautiful Town-owned vista, and will not serve the role of providing handicapped access because it will dead-end on a sandy trail that goes another long distance to the beach. There is a time and a place for large ADR compliant beach access, and I would support it at, for example, First Light Beach and other Town Landings such as Linnell, and most suitable, Crosby (Assuming DCR agreement). This project is completely out of scale and inappropriate for the location, and will lead at this scale to the degradation of the qualities that make Wing Island such a treasure. When you’ve lived here over 40 years and taken that view for granted, it is jarring to see the Town come along and propose something so out of context. I think this is why there is a large pushback beginning to unfold. The fact that it is being privately funded, I think, adds to the sense of disbelief that our Town government is the proponent. Bill gayle condit <gaylecondit@comcast.net> This isn't a boardwalk this is a bridge! The conservation Commission and conservation members elected paid or appointed should be ashamed of themselves for even considering such a project and as elected town officals you have I feel lost touch with the wants of the people who call Brewster our home. The ruining of one of the most beautiful marsh vistas on Cape Cod is only one of the reasons this project should be scraped. The environmental damage to the marsh, additional traffic to both wings island and the Drummer Boy park ,added garbage, added maintenance, all added to the fact that we haven't even figured out what to do with the Sea Camps property are reasons to forget this asinine idea. Maybe you all should listen to Jodi Michelle song "you don't know what you've got till it's gone" They tore up paradise and put up a parking lot! As a Brewster resident of close to 70 years I think this a bad proposal and I for one will never vote for it and will encourage anyone I know not to vote for it. Gayle Condit Paul Gasek <sbfilms@comcast.net> Good morning! Gaylord Nelson, founder of Earth Day, once asked,"if you had 10 or a dozen such places, you might think of despoiling one. But if it’s the only one, do we really want to drill?" He was referring to the coastal plain of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge - but the question applies here ... What would John Hay say about a walkway over Quivet Marsh?? You know what he’d say - he’d have nothing to do with it, and campaign against it. Let that be our guide! Everything about it, from the digging, construction, to the eventual foot traffic across it and out to the island, is bad for both the marsh and Wing Island. 20 foot deep holes for piles will require at least one piece of heavy equipment, which the marsh will struggle to support. Salt marshes are far more tender than most people realize - even one small piece of heavy equipment to dig 20 foot deep (!!!) post holes will damage it. To say nothing of chemicals leaching from pressure-treated wood. Once it’s constructed, some people will certainly leave the boardwalk and walk on the marsh. On WIng Island, the extra foot traffic will serve to degrade the pathways across the hummock further. And, if this is going to be an all-access way, will the narrow footpaths on Wing Island be dug out and widened to accommodate wheelchairs? The opinions of hired scientists and consultants paid to come to a foregone conclusion do not trump common sense and long experience in Brewster. It’s pretty clear - the proposed walkway is neither necessary nor beneficial. On the contrary …. It IS something of a monument, somebody’s monument .... But it'll be a scar across the marsh, spoil the view, and degrade the wild character of it. And when Nature comes to claim it one winter not long from now, it’ll be money down the drain. Some people might think it’s neat - sure, that’s a point of view. Another is, it’s an expensive, destructive, ill-advised idea. If you want to go out to Wing Island, join the museum and walk the pathway that already exists. If you must walk over a marsh, take a little trip down to Gray’s Beach. If you want to spend money, buy some more property in conservation. But please do not spend a penny on or grant a permit for a boardwalk over our lovely old Quivet Marsh. Sincerely - Paul Paul Gasek 1002 Stony Brook Road Brewster, MA 02631 USA O: 508-896-2562 M: 508-725-0064 _____________________________________________________________________________________ Louise Vivona-Miller <lvivonamiller@gmail.com> I am a field guide at the Cape Cod Museum of Natural History and have led dozens of school groups and family walks across the marsh plank path. I have no objections to an elevated pathway from Drummer Boy park but I do have objections to an elevated pathway to replace the marsh planks. I feel the marsh planks help cement the connection to nature by making visitors more cognizant of the effect of the twice daily tides on the marsh. It's part of life near the shore to pay attention to the tide tables. Second, the school groups are closer to the ground where they can observe the marsh snails and experience the nature of the marsh and make them more aware of what is going on at eye level. Address safety hazards: the new boardwalk will not address the trip hazard on the pathway to the beach through the upland meadow down the very steep stone steps and pathway laden with roots. In my seven years as field guide leading numerous groups of children and adults, I have not had one child or adult trip on the marsh planks, but I did have one gentleman trip and fall on the pathway through the upland meadow on his way down to the beach. Sincerely, Louise Vivona-Miller Mary Oneil <oneil.m@msn.com> Can you please spell out the various permits required for this project and what agency does each have to be approved by? Thanks, M. ONeil Debra Demarais <intheweedsflowerfarm@hotmail.com> My name is Debra Demarais and I am strongly against the boardwalk project. One of many holding meetings at Drummer Boy to rally our citizens against this. I never heard of this till barely three weeks ago. First reason. Money. We spent a fortune on Sea Camps. It has a million projects. If you want wheelchair access there is a road almost to the beach where a wider path and a viewing platform would be much less costly Second reason. Quivett marsh. Are you joking. A fragile ecosystem with an abundance of life to be built on?? Bass Hole. Sandwich Boardwalk. They get destroyed every major winter storm. Third reason. Wing Islsnd. Better access. Our only island ?? And to what. Wing Islands outer beach ??No potty’s. No. Garbage pickup. A beautiful sanctuary the town wants increased access too ?? Fourth reason. Lack of transparency. From our selectmen and woman. This has been on the table. Town meetings we all knew NOTHING ABOUT !! This has been in the works and I am one of so many that are absolutely furious. And we are gathering to try and stop this. Fifth reason. The selectboard accepted a million dollars as a donation. But the donor is anonymous. Rumor has it from Dennis as long as he can name the boardwalk. No. Our town. Our choices. Our residents get to decide what happens. If the new selectboard has made decision for the towns people that they are against they will not be elected again. That’s a sure thing. Our residents are as they say up in arms over this. Sixth reason. More than half of our residents way more than half —don’t do “Zoom”. The meetings are not publicized enough. We need to see and be heard. In a location that we can voice our feelings. Please. Please. Please. Don’t do this to our beautiful Quivett Marsh. By destroying habitat. Increasing access to a beautiful island oasis. Please. Debra Demarais Our next meeting is at the Drummer Boy Thursday September 1 Five O’clock For your information. Hayley Winfield <hayley.winfield@yahoo.com> Dear Town of Brewster. The planned boardwalk from Drummer Boy Park to Wing Island is a disgraceful, anti conservation project. It is a vanity project, sadly conjured up by Brewster Conservation Trust more than seven years ago. Why did it take so long for the town to announce such a debacle? Taking a donation from a non-resident, non voting individual is akin to selling the soul of the town. I wonder what resource will be next. Perhaps zip lines in the Punkhorn!! The town, the Conservation Commission and Brewster Conservation Trust should be ashamed of taking money to pay for a monument that is neither necessary nor wanted. Regards, Hayley Winfield 24 Donahue Rd Brewster Betty Zimmerberg <bzimmerb@williams.edu> Selectboard, I attended the Boardwalk Project presentation, and then went to Drummer Boy Park and walked the new trails. I have frequently walked over Quivett Marsh to Wing Island in the 33 years that I have lived in Brewster. I've brought children and now grandchildren there every summer. The views are unique and precious. One must be aware of the tides to cross - as a biologist and former nature guide, I think that this is a GOOD problem! Having one's activities line up with the changing tides is a great way to foster understanding and knowledge of our natural world. I have several serious concerns about the Boardwalk Project that I would like to register with you. I agree that the wooden boards currently linking the "Museum trail" with Wing Island need to be replaced/repaired. However, the height and width of the proposed second boardwalk crossing Quivett marsh is just too high and too wide. This section of the boardwalk project will mar the precious view. What is the point of this section? It does not allow anyone using a wheelchair to go across Wing Island to the beach. I support only a boardwalk that will run parallel to the near shore of Drummer Boy and town conservation land, with viewing stations along that boardwalk. It is hard to believe that the 230 "giant screws" described to be drilled 20 feet into the marsh will not harm sea and marsh fauna as well as their eggs and larvae. I think a complete discussion of the effects of this project on fauna and flora has not yet been conducted. Chris did note that at least one endangered plant species would be disturbed. I also think that the tranquil nature of Wing Island for birds and hikers should be preserved. Bringing lots of visitors to the island is not conservation. We have a wonderful new beach at First Light, let's concentrate on that as a recreational resource. Finally, I think it a bit disingenuous to say that this project will "Connect[s] six open space properties and their trail systems". Everyone in town would consider the first four locations as essentially the same place! [Drummer Boy Park, Brewster Historical Society’s Windmill Village, Brewster Conservation Trust’s Windmill Meadow and Town Conservation Land]. Thank you, Betty Zimmerberg, PhD 55 Flying Mist Lane, Brewster Priscilla Brooks <capecilla@icloud.com> I have been resident and taxpayer in Brewster since 1971. I have watched our town grow and change but have felt, in the past, that my voice and opinions mattered. For this project to proceed without a vote bothers me. I am not in agreement with making Wing Island and the Quivet Marsh easy to access with a 10-15 ft high and 10 ft wide bridge. You can already push a w/c on a paved path at Drummer Boy Park to view a beautiful vista. You could add an elevated deck for improved viewing with a gradually designed ramp for w/c accessibility. There are many options beyond your excessive proposed design. Our wetlands are precious and this unique property surrounding the marsh and the Wing Island area need to be protected for all our wildlife. Humans need to tread lightly. I feel this whole project needs to be majorly scaled down. Just because the town received a 1 million donation, I understand, for this bridge/walkway doesn’t give our town the right to ignore the voice of those who recognize the detriment this project brings to this very fragile area. The survey did not reflect what you are proposing. I am begging you to listen to those who care about the purpose of conservation. bon1388 <bon1388@aol.com> Please Leave the boardwalk alone. Don't disturb nature! Leslie Kalinowski 147 Russells Path, Brewster James Maguire <j.a.maguire@gmail.com> I’d like to be counted among those concerned about the Wing Island boardwalk plan. Sounded like a good idea until I got a handle on the details. I’m opposed to the scale of the project and the disruptions to the delicate ecosystem. Curious if there are any sea grass restoration plans for the town’s beaches? James Maguire 22 Long Pond Rd Home <eswolfson@gmail.com> Thank you for all the work involved in the proposal for Drummer Boy Park and Boardwalk project. I am a frequent visitor to Wing Island, enjoying the hiking and birding opportunities. While I appreciate the committee’s goal of increasing accessibility, a boardwalk across the marsh doesn’t make any sense to me, given that the Wing Island trails are not accessible at all. Instead, I support an accessible nature trail along Drummer Boy park to the marsh side, perhaps with short elevated boardwalk with sitting areas. There is one of these smaller boardwalks and sitting areas at Gray’s Beach in Yarmouthport that allows for visitors to enjoy the marsh vista. I also support the proposals for improvements to Drummer Boy, especially the parking plan. Sincerely, Lis Wolfson 13 Juniper Circle Dana Erikson <deerikson@gmail.com> I think this is a horrible idea and project. It should not be done, the area should be left alone mary mitchell <topmommc@yahoo.com> To the Board Committee, Thank you for sharing the presentation and recent Q & A. As a frequent traveler to the island and a residential owner I am in agreement to both the project priorities and the financial resources obtained and so generously donated to bring it forth. Sincerely Grateful, Mary Mitchell 70 Prell Circle Brewster, MA Evelyn Salvadore <evelyns8@comcast.net> Dear Members of the Brewster Conservation Trust, Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this issue. I really can’t see a reason to mar the beautiful landscape of this area with this boardwalk. The John Wing trail can be improved and made more accessible. Besides the severe impact to the fragile environment, I feel the money can be better spent by adding to the Trust’s land holdings. There are many parcels available that are ripe for development. Also, the Backus project interests me a lot and I assume there is much to be done there to make ti accessible to the public. What a great place to sit and have a cup of tea, listen to the birds sing or read a book right in town! Thank you for all you do for Brewster. You are amazing!!! Kindest regards, Evelyn Salvadore Leslie A Lambros <lesliealambros@gmail.com> The presentation was beautifully done and totally comprehensible. What a wonderful addition to our already fabulous town. We ca not wait to see it and enjoy it with all of our visitors'. Leslie & George Lambros 8 Oak Grove Lane Brewster, MA (508) 896 2833 Rae Rylander <raseahunt@comcast.net> This is an over ambitious proposal which is not at all necessary and will ruin the marsh view. Making an elevated access to Wing Island will cause people to carry picnic items including alcohol, fireworks, and wood for beach fires. With no easy supervision by officials it will be party Mecca. Please rethink and reject this proposal. Rae Rylander Karen <gardenbabe49@yahoo.com> I am absolutely opposed to this project. Not just for environmental reasons. Is our select board for sale? Good questions for the next election. Sophia Sayigh <ssayigh@outlook.com> Hi, I appreciated watching the video of the August 15 presentation to learn more about this potential project. I am not sure what I think overall, there are a lot of viewpoints and issues to consider. I wonder if it was considered to make a boardwalk or path from the Town of Brewster conservation land to Wing Island, and not have the connection (i.e. the south end of the current path) down to the museum? It seems like this would alleviate the problem of people parking at the museum for access to Wing Island, since there wouldn’t be access. The museum could still access the marsh for programs by going through Drummer Boy. The boardwalk/path would be less extensive and expensive. I don’t understand why the plan goes to such an extent to accommodate the museum when it doesn’t appear that the museum is contributing to the funds to support the project. Sophia Sayigh 28 Duneward Lane Haralyn Kuckes <kuckesharalyn@msn.com> I am all for it. Thanks for this great project. Haralyn kuckes Theda Swanson <thedas@comcast.net> Hello As a 20 year resident of Brewster (relocated from Yarmouth Port), my husband and originally moved here because Brewster seemed the perfect place to raise our kids Old Cape Cod style. It has lived up to our dreams. We love our town. THANK YOU for searching for ways for the town and our summer visitors enjoying the bounty we have. The boardwalk seems to be another good addition that keeps our town quaint, our lovely spots accessible and our town moving forward in a thoughtful and charming way. I look forward to meandering walks through nature on the new boardwalk! Best, Theda Swanson Jacob Nieman <jacob.nieman93@gmail.com> Hello, I wanted to, as a resident, encourage the board to make the improvements proposed for the boardwalk. Public space is no good if it cannot be accessed by all. Sincerely, Jacob Nieman 45 Eagle Wing Ln Pat Bertschy <rcb13@verizon.net> I support the boardwalk project between Dummer boy and Wing Island. Pat Bertschy CYNTHIA DEARRUDA <cdear@comcast.net> I'm against the boardwalk. Drummer Boy Park will never be the same in my opinion. I see it becoming another place for beach goers to park. Crowes Pasture is already becoming a hot spot with very little parking for the people who want to walk and enjoy the scenery for free. The museum is already seeing a problem with parking even with signs saying no beach parking. How do you stop that? I don't think charging for parking is the answer either. Even if you reconstruct the current footbridge to Wing Island from the museum and not adding what is proposed the beach parking is still an issue. I believe that would become a huge problem and destroy the charm of Drummer Boy Park. I think a lookout is a great idea but not a boardwalk from the park. I feel as though there are so many other areas of open space that could use improvement without impacting so much conservation. Thank you, Cindy DeArruda Vince McKay <vp.mckay@gmail.com> Dear Selectboard members, We are new residents of the Town, but longtime visitors to Wing Island. The island is a natural resource treasure that can be made more accessible - so that more people can safely enjoy its splendor - through this project. One specific example: my elderly in-laws would be able to access the island if the walking conditions to reach across the marsh were better. Please support moving this project forward ! Thanks for listening. Sincerely, Vincent McKay, Elizabeth Davis 448 Stony Brook Carryl <carryl.lynn@gmail.com> Please Stop trying to develop the natural land and environment in Brewster, thereby destroying the ecological balance of this beautiful, natural piece of nature, and thus destroying the home of the natural flora and fauna - the natural home of many beautiful, unique plants and animal life. Brewster isn’t an amusement park, you would be destroying the actual site you are trying to lore people here to see. You would be destroying what Brewster is. Don’t sell Brewster. Thank you Carryl Lynn Betsy Stevenson <betty1bythesea@yahoo.com> As 22+ year resident, I am passionately against this project. This will be devastating to wildlife and the environment. Please leave it as it is and make different accommodations for anyone who has a disability and cannot manage the walk or the tides. It is one of the most beautiful and well preserved natural wonders we have. Thank you. Betsy Stevenson and Martin Ahlijanian 81 Seaway Road Brewster, MA Betsy Stevenson 617 306 6972 Brewster By the Sea <amy@brewsterbythesea.com> Hello, Thank you for all of the work to date on this project. I support the concept of the boardwalk from Drummer Boy Park to Wing Island, and have the following comments on the current design: 1. The scenic and ecological qualities of the marsh should be impacted as little as possible. With that, it seems the height and width of the Boardwalk are too large for the site. The width, especially. Ten feet, plus room for bannisters is way too wide. Please make it more narrow and use the overlooks as pullouts if people need to pass. The bridges at Ridgevale Beach in Chatham are good models. 2. Are you able to hug and follow the contours of the uplands a bit more on the portion between Drummer Boy and the connection to the current location? That leg seems to jut out into the marsh at a sharp angle a bit too far and could negatively impact the scenic qualities of the marsh. Can you soften it with some curves? I realize there are sensitive species along the edge, but perhaps some mitigation could be conducted to compensate for any impacts. 3. I am concerned about parking capacity at Drummer Boy. What is to prevent people from parking on the grassy fields, as they have been encouraged to do during Craft/Antique Fairs? Fencing that cannot be removed? The grasslands at Drummer Boy Park should remain an open space park for people to enjoy, and not turn into a summer time over flow parking lot for Wing Island. 4. For future consideration — a boardwalk along the north side of the causeway between CCMNH and the shopping center, so people can safely walk from the western part of Brewster to the businesses along that stretch to Lemon Tree Village. We feel very cut off over here, and have to rely on our cars to get to the businesses that are less than a mile away. Thank you, Amy Chesnut 716 Main Street Brewster, MA Sharon Mandell <stmandell@comcast.net> We were appalled as we read about this proposal. A ten foot wide boardwalk will not only be an ugly structure, but disturb a fragile environment, and invite trash, and other problems on what is one of Brewster’s most important historical sites, Wing Island. We do not understand why anyone thinks this is a good idea. Brewster is known for its quiet, unspoiled beauty. It has never, nor should it, courted activities to attract crowds (folks who otherwise might have little, if any, interest in the natural habitat of Wing Island). We have loved walking on Wing Island over the past 40 years. Many families pass along the two plank boardwalk, seemingly without incident. The simple pathways and unspoiled vistas are what make Wing Island special. Is anyone clanging a warning bell about the negative impact on bird nesting areas, etc? I have no doubt John Wing would be very unhappy to hear about this plan. We do not understand how Brewster’s Conservation Commission could ever approve this plan. If the million dollar donation is driving this unnecessary and ill advised plan, give it back! Sincerely, Sharon and Andy Mandell 35 Jediah Lane Marion Moebus <marionm@snet.net> I am a part time resident (full time taxpayer) and I cannot support the boardwalk. I saw nothing in the presentation deck about the environmental impact, both of constructing the boardwalk and of increased traffic on Wing Island. I am concerned that this fragile area will be damaged. Thank you, Marion Moebus 18 Court Way Michael Mitrano <michael@consultcambiar.com> All in, I think it’s a good idea. Michael Mitrano summer resident Ann Lambertus <alambertus99@gmail.com> We are vehemently opposed to the Wing Island Boardwalk Project. This is a horrible idea and such a structure will detract from the natural landscape in a number of ways. It will be visually unappealing, threatens wildlife and marsh habitat, and is unnecessary. An 'enhanced visitor experience' can be achieved with a viewing platform closer to the water at Drummer Boy Park. Additional parking and better access from the park can be achieved with a better sidewalk from the park to the trailhead at 6A next to the museum. We are 'visitors' to this fragile environment, should leave its flora and fauna as undisturbed as possible The current boards laying on the marsh provide an adequate trail and offer visitors an experience which bring us all into contact with the forces of nature ( tides etc) which we need to respect. I think it's outrageous that the wishes of one donor through th BCT should become a plan for the town to follow. This idea should have been rejected from the start, Thank you. Ann Lambertus 577 Crowells Bog Rd and 15 and 16 Fieldstone Terrace Brewster, MA 29 Highland Ave, Lexington MA Laura Eldridge <lauraeldridge@verizon.net> As long-time Brewster residents, we are opposed to the proposed construction of a raised boardwalk connecting and replacing existing trails via Wing Island etc. While we support accessibility to open spaces, we believe that this boardwalk is a detrimental addition to the marsh and character of Brewster. We are consumers of the local papers and we never saw or received any information about this concept prior to the current news coverage. It may not be true, but neighbors said that a survey was available at the library and town hall but mostly during covid shutdown or shortly after openings. If that was the case, it would seem that it was not readily available and that the project is much farther along but not in the public’s view. We respectfully submit our objection and look forward to attending future virtual forums. We also would encourage the hardworking town and committee member to consider alternatives. Sincerely, Laura and Scott Eldridge 37 Tower Hill Circle 508-221-8887 Daryl Bladen <daryl.bladen@gmail.com> From: Daryl Bladen, 1186 Stony Brook Road To: Brewster Select Board and members of the various committees involved with this proposal I have been a full-time resident of Brewster since 1995, worked part time at both the Cape Cod Museum of Natural History and the Brewster Ladies’ Library for many years, and continue to volunteer for the Brewster COA as a medical driver and Meals-on-Wheels delivery person. I also continue to use and enjoy all of Brewster’s walking trails and many of the beaches and ponds. It has long amused me that one of the best views in Brewster is found from the side parking lot by Dunkin Donuts (where there are frequently used cups and other litter at one’s feet.) This view of the Marsh is also a joy to see for anyone driving west on 6A after rounding Betty’s Curve and heading toward Dennis. Once past the Lukes and DD signs, it is an unencumbered view of the Marsh and Wing Island that I would guess has not changed much for more than 100 years, with the exceptions of the osprey nest pole. While the boardwalk to Wing Island has changed a bit over the years, it is barely noticeable from 6A or the shopping center parking lot. — The proposal for a two-pronged, large, much higher boardwalk would interfere with and distract from the beautiful view of the marsh from all viewing points, whether from the Dunkin parking lot, 6A or the new conservation area (Cedar Ridge) just east of Drummer Boy Park. — I have observed the excellent recent improvements at Drummer Boy with the paved walking circle, benches and improved views of the Marsh and know that they are enjoyed by all, especially people who use canes, walkers and wheelchairs. Why not add an accessible viewing platform so that all can enjoy a better view of the Marsh from either the Drummer Boy Park or just to the east on the conservation land with a new paved path to the platform? — Having a boardwalk from Drummer Boy would not help anyone with a walker or wheelchair get to the beach since Wing Island is not accessible. Those who are able-bodied and want to go to the beach already can by using the 6A sidewalk to get to the existing boardwalk. — If it is necessary to improve the boardwalk from the Museum to the Island, please do so in a scaled down way so that it is not too intrusive to either the view or the Marsh itself. —A compromise plan for a Viewing Platform would avoid causing two big new problems for the Town: PARKING FOR and OVERUSE OF WING ISLAND. Thank you. gary robinson <grobin380@yahoo.com> August 31, 2022 Dear Select Board, and/or other appropriate Town entity(ies), While appreciating the good intentions of the Town to make Wing Island more easily accessible, I think construction of the proposed boardwalk across the marsh to the island should not be done. First and foremost, to destroy an absolutely beautiful marsh and island vista that took nature thousands of years to create by erecting an elevated man-made structure across it would be a visual travesty. Of Brewster's 25.4 sq. mi., the square mile (+) occupied by the colorful marsh and Wing Island is far and away the greatest jewel of them all, aesthetically. In my opinion, the Town should not do anything that would diminish that natural attribute in any way. Also, does the Town really want to encourage a lot more people tramping around Wing Island? It's probably fragile enough already, without the addition of much more foot traffic. As for wheelchair accessibility, the 2' wide rocky, root obstructed, hilly trails within the island pose a decent challenge for fully mobile hikers. Given the terrain, I'm not sure navigating it would be possible, safe or even enjoyable for someone in a wheelchair. There are other considerations such as maintenance, inevitable litter and graffiti removal, the necessity of additional parking capacity at Drummer Boy Park, etc. To me, however, those are trivial details, considering what's at stake here. The real question, at least in my mind, is whether the Town seriously wants to destroy the visual jewel in its crown by building what I hope most Brewster citizens would consider an eyesore just to accommodate more foot traffic on the delicate treasure we call Wing Island. Thank you for your consideration of these comments. Gary Robinson Brewster, MA Jean MacKenzie <dmackenzie281@gmail.com> We are very opposed to this boardwalk project. How, in the name of conservation, can bringing more people to Wing Island be acceptable? The way one now goes from the Natural History teaches one about tides, that you can't cross the marsh at high tide. It keeps the numbers of people on the Island down to manageable numbers. It's not necessary to link everything together. The road does that. People can park at the Museum, the Drummer Boy, Luke's. If we are to preserve the marsh and rare species we can't let this boardwalk happen! Sincerely, Jean and Don MacKenzie 281 Main St., Brewster Holly Delaney <hollyndelaney@gmail.com> The wing island/drummer boy boardwalk proposal looks awesome and I welcome this change. Very thorough and nature-respectful presentation. Holly Delaney 428 Lower Road Donna <DLSmith1982@comcast.net> As a full time member of the Brewster community, I am writing to express my STRONG opposition to this project! Sincerely, Donna Smith 365 Holly Ave Jan Evans <evansjan@comcast.net> My name is Jan Marie Evans and I live at 365 Holly Ave, Brewster MA 02631. I am very opposed to the Plan to connect Wing Island with Drummer Boy Park. This plan seems to offer benefits, such as having much of the cost covered by an anonymous source, and also securing conservation restrictions for Wing Island. However , I believe the benefits, such as they are, are far outweighed by the disadvantages. I believe this Boardwalk would open Wing Island, which is a precious little piece of Brewster, to tourists and residents from many different towns who are looking for a free Bay beach to use (and potentially abuse). What could be better? Free parking in Drummer Boy, a short hike over the boardwalk, and free use of the Bay beach… who would be responsible for the trash that would show up on Wing Island? Who would be there to make sure that dogs did not accompany their owners over to Wing Island? Is this anonymous downer going to also fund the care and upkeep, in perpetuity, of Wing Island? I love Wing Island as a small, quiet place to sit and think. We have few enough places like that as it is without giving over another one to the highest bidder. It is also a valuable part of CCMNH. The museum will lose revenue with this plan. Why hasn’t a plan been envisioned that would charge a reasonable fee for parking and access to Wing Island for non-members of the museum? I certainly don’t think that fee should require anyone to have to pay the annual membership to the museum. But some payment should be charged to discourage the option of free usage of a Brewster Bay beach. Please rethink this plan, and stop the Boardwalk. Simply because there may be money available for this plan does not make it worthwhile. JANE MACKENZIE <mack444@verizon.net> I am opposed to the boardwalk and everything it represents. The wetlands are too fragile to support the physical structure of a boardwalk and the additional amount of people a boardwalk would attract. The boardwalk itself would be vulnerable to winter ice and storms. John Hay would never agree to such a thing. The town just acquired the Cape Cod Sea Camps property which has a huge amount of land and needs many upgrades etc. . Effort and money should be directed there. Jane A. MacKenzie MaryLou Ramsey <ramsey@tcnj.edu> I do not support the proposed Wing Island Boardwalk proposal, because I would hate to see this vista compromised and am concerned that any such project would increase pedestrian traffic to an excess. MaryLou Ramsey 334 Holly Ave., Brewster Randall Watson <cclampub21@gmail.com> Greetings, I'm writing in reference to the Wing Island boardwalk project proposal. My name is Randall Watson, and I've lived on Hornbeam Hill Road next to Upper Mill Pond for about 20 years, a little over a mile from the proposed boardwalk location. I pass by the Wing Island and the surrounding marsh frequently, and I walk the existing planks and nature trails a few times each year. Although I missed the first public forum for this project, I did view the forum recording and reviewed the presentation slides. Thanks to all involved for the planning work and presentations done so far, and for inviting public input. In general, I support the project concept and the goals of making Wing Island more accessible to people with disabilities and tying various town recreational and natural resource properties together. While I realize the proposed project will have some visual impact, I don't necessarily consider all man-made structures ugly, and in fact have noticed that boardwalks, docks, and piers often feature prominently in coastal themed artworks. However I do have some concerns and questions about the current proposal, as well as some suggestions that I hope might be considered as the planning and implementation process proceeds. Concern #1: I feel the overall project is too large in that the ~450' boardwalk from Drummer Boy Park to main boardwalk seems superfluous. As was mentioned during the comment portion of the first public forum, we have a perfectly serviceable sidewalk connecting Drummer Boy to the Museum of Natural History and the existing trail head, which will become the trail to the main section of the proposed boardwalk. It seems we could cut the project size and cost by about one third by eliminating the Drummer Boy boardwalk. Also, if this section of the structure were to be knocked down in nor'easter storm, it would almost certainly end up against the shore on top of the threatened cordgrass that the boardwalk is supposed to protect. Concern #2: On the other hand, the project may not be large enough in another aspect, that being the 12' elevation of the deck for the main boardwalk. If I'm interpreting the concept elevations plan correctly, this is not only below the 14' 100 yr flood level for 2022, it is far short of the wave action elevations for 2050 (16.7') and 2070 (19.1'). I'm assuming that "wave action" levels are what we might expect during severe weather events occurring coincident with extreme high tides and a northerly (especially north-westerly) wind. We have experienced such conditions on several occasions over the past few years, at least twice resulting in the flooding of Rt 6A where it crosses the marsh. Additionally, these extreme storm/tidal events result in a large mass of flotsam being washed off the shoreline, which would tend to collect on any structure immersed in the tidal flow, with large and probably destructive stresses resulting as the flotsam turns the structure into a dam. Given the effects of climate change, I feel it would be prudent to plan and build for extreme weather and flood events to be more frequent in the not so distant future. (2070 is less than 50 years away!) I'd advocate for bringing the deck height up to 24', in order to clear the water and any floating debris during these increasingly frequent major storms. I realize that the higher deck height would also imply a wider base for the structure in order to provide a sturdy foundation. I also understand that the current proposed deck height was suggested as a compromise between risk of damage and appeasing those that object to the visual impact of the structure, but in my experience hurricanes and blizzards are not interested in compromises! Concern #3: The proposal is to support the boardwalk on helical pilings, screwed into the soil below the marsh. Over 200 of such pilings will be required if the project goes ahead with both the Drummer Boy and main boardwalks. There was no workaround mentioned for the case where some subsurface condition is discovered that prevents the installation of some number of the helical pilings, e.g. a large boulder, or perhaps a large number of smaller rocks. As I recall (and I suspect Chis Miller can corroborate) the construction of the Paines Creek Beach culvert just a little to east of the proposed boardwalk experienced significant construction delays due to unforeseen subterranean conditions. Concern #4: Ice. We've all seen the bay and marsh filled to the horizon with frozen blocks of sea ice. Sometimes the ice forms large floes 2 to 4 feet thick that are carried on the tides, to and fro, depending on the direction of the wind. There was no mention of how the boardwalk structure might be affected by heavy ice formations being stacked against it in currents generated by storm winds and tidal flows. Concern #5: Timing. Can we afford to take on this project at this time? We still have a lot of work to do to manage the Sea Camp properties. Construction and finance costs are at historically high levels. Perhaps it would be best to put this project off for a few years until we've resolved our plans for the Sea Camp properties and the economy stabilizes and recovers from its post-pandemic hangover. Suggestion #1: Eliminate the Drummer Boy park boardwalk connection, reducing the scope and cost of the project by a third, as well reducing the threat to the threatened cordgrass in the event of structural failure. Suggestion #2: To present a more natural appearance, design and build the structure with some slight bends. This is not to say extreme curves that would require constructing complex curved supports and the time consuming cutting of tapered deck boards, but subtle undulations that might be obtained by varying the gaps between the deck boards from end to end, for example, a nominal 1/4" gap might be tapered from 3/16" on the inside of the curve to 5/16" on the outer edge. A similar effect might also be applied vertically, perhaps making a slight hump in the center of the roughly 700' span that is 2' or so higher than the ends. Suggestion #3: Make the approach ramps raisable or removable for extreme weather emergencies. Since the shoreline areas tend to concentrate flotsam in the water flow, the ramps will be especially vulnerable to catching such flotsam and being swept away by the currents. The ramps will probably tend to take at least some, and perhaps a significant portion, of the main boardwalk with them if they are carried away. Having the ability to temporarily raise or remove the ramps would likely spare major damage to the higher main sections of the boardwalk. An alternative approach (if the grade at approaches to the boardwalk allows) might be to eliminate the ramps completely and extend the boardwalk at the main section height until it intersects with the upland grade. Suggestion #4: Choose to use the most open railing design allowable to encourage floating debris to flow through them. The presentation contained some example railing designs, many of which employed a mesh of thin wires to reduce visual impact. However, such mesh designs would be prone to catching flotsam if the railings were to become inundated during an extreme weather/tidal event. This would tend to turn the boardwalk into a dam, and likely subject it to destructive stresses. One of the presented railing designs used horizontal boards which should be less apt to collect floating debris, and therefore more likely to contribute to the structure surviving a major flooding event. Questions: Q1: Cost? Can we at least get a range or ballpark estimate? Q2: What is the elevation of the road surface on the Rt 6A causeway? This information would be useful as reference elevation. Since we know Rt 6A floods on a near annual basis currently, we'd want the boardwalk deck and railings to be well above this height. Q3: What was the nature of the subsurface conditions that caused the culvert construction delay at Paines Creek beach and would those same conditions present a problem for the helical pilings proposed to be used for the boardwalk project? Q4: Will the project be engineered specifically for this site taking into consideration (present and future) wind and water currents, debris loading, soil conditions, etc and the loads impinged on the boardwalk structure? Or will some more generic structural design guidelines for boardwalks be used? Q5: What can we expect as a lifetime for the boardwalk once it's completed? Can we get some examples of similar projects and how long they've lasted? (In doing some research I found a CC Times article that mentioned the Gray's Beach boardwalk in Yarmouth had been rebuilt "about 7 times" over its 200 year history.) Q6: What can we expect for annual maintenance costs? Can we get some comparative data from similar projects? Q7: What sort of changes are planned at Drummer Boy park to allow for more parking? Thank you for listening and I look forward to participating in the next public forum. Sincerely, Randall Watson -- Randall Watson, Citizen "Specialization is for insects" – LL *Correction: The 200 year old boardwalk that has been rebuilt 7 times referenced in Q5 should be the Sandwich boardwalk, not the Grays Beach boardwalk. CC Times article attached for reference. Although I realize that a sample size of one doesn't lend itself to making an accurate prediction of the lifespan of the Wing Island boardwalk, this at least gives a datapoint. Hopefully we can get additional historical information from other boardwalk installations to help sharpen the estimated Wing Island project life expectancy. Shana Brogan <brogansh@gmail.com> August 31, 2022 Re: Proposed Boardwalk to Wing Island Dear Brewster Select Board, I am a year-round resident and homeowner in Brewster and grew up in Dennis. I participated in the surveys for the Brewster Visioning Plan and Open Space and Recreation Plan, and voted in favor of purchasing the land adjacent to Drummer Boy Park. I voted positively on the surveys to the ‘idea’ of a boardwalk to Wing Island from Drummer Boy Park. To me it sounded like a good ‘idea’ at the time. Unfortunately, seeing the reality of what access to Wing Island from Drummer Boy Park entails has made me re-consider whether this is a wise idea. It's my understanding that the design process will move forward. I greatly appreciate the efforts and professionalism of town staff, along with their initiative in implementing the wishes and needs of the town identified through the planning process. I offer the following for your consideration: Consider replacing just the existing boardwalk with thru-flow or some other grating material to Wing’s Island, and do not provide access from Drummer Boy Park, however, provide an unobtrusive overlook area at Drummer Boy Park with a seating area. Both elevated to 2050 sea level. Provide this as a conceptual design for review and consideration. This option will meet all the project goals: o It will improve accessibility on the current board walk by providing an open, stable surface to walk on. o The open space properties will be connected via sidewalk on Route 6A. If the sidewalk is not wide enough or grades are inappropriate, consider modifications at Drummer Boy, agreements with the residents abutting the walkway, and improve the access to the current boardwalk. o It will provide climate adaptation by providing sunlight to the marsh below allowing marsh grass to re-establish, and will improve accessibility during the tidal cycles. o The user experience will be improved as there can be a platform and bench area at Drummer Boy Park for enjoying the marsh vista, it will improve access for painters and photographers. o A permanent Conservation Restriction and management plan should be placed on the property, in general, separately from the project, and access from a replaced boardwalk will avoid new construction over a salt marsh, and the habitat and wildlife impacts associated with it. o It would address the safety concerns by providing a smooth surface to walk across the marsh. Consider developing an agreement with the Museum of Natural History to hire parking lot attendants for both Natural History Museum parking areas. Develop a system for enforcement using signage, parking monitoring, two stationed attendants to educate, and enforce the area and review the results of this alternative before considering new construction. Consider requesting funding for construction of this alternative at the May 2023 Town Meeting. Having lived here all my life, I greatly appreciate that the past generations of Brewster citizens had a great vision to protect and preserve many tracts of land over the years, and care for the many antique homes in town that give Brewster its unique character and simplicity. Given that Drummer Boy Park, Wing Island, and the marsh are iconic landscapes in the town, I urge the Select Board to consider an option that honors the legacy and respects the land that has been left to us to steward. It will benefit not only today’s residents, but future generations. Thank you, Shana Brogan Peter Bradley <pbradley33@gmail.com> Hello, I've read the proposal and other information regarding the raised boardwalk extending from Drummer Boy Park to Wing Island. I am NOT in favor of this project. It's too much. I enjoy the island and have no problem crossing the wet area to reach the island. I'm concerned about aesthetics and impact on the very sensitive environment. Brewster is beautiful as it is. -- Peter Bradley 168 Pond St Brewster, MA 02631 Lisa Shook <lisa.shook@gmail.com> Wing island should be preserved as it is As someone who can no longer walk every trail due to ambulatory issues I still feel there are areas that should be kept in there Harvey Dahl <hjdahl23@gmail.com> To the Select Board, After watching a brief report on the project at a recent Select Board meeting I wanted to express my support for the project. I support this project for the following reasons: 1. Provides access to John Wings Island from Drummer Boy Park. This cannot be minimized. Many people avoid going on the current path because it feels like you are infringing on the museum. Even if you use the path and are not a member, you must walk from Drummer Boy down 6A, not much fun with young children. 2. The above grade boardwalk will make access easier for more people. The current boardwalk is narrow and frequently underwater. Many elderly residents avoid using it. 3. With Sea level rise, the current boardwalk will need more frequent maintenance leaving it unusable for extended periods of time. 4. A new raised boardwalk will have to be more environmentally friendly than boards placed in the middle of the wetlands. I want to add my support for this project. Please consider approving this project. Best regards, Harvey (Pete) Dahl 54 Wynn Way Brewster, MA 02631 hjdahl23@gmail.com Janice Riley <janice.riley@comcast.net> I am a resident of Cape Cod, and specifically of the Town of Brewster. I am opposed to the proposed construction of a two-part elevated boardwalk crossing the Quivett and Paine’s Creek Marshes to Wing Island from Drummer Boy Park and the Cape Cod Museum of Natural History. I am approaching this as a citizen and voter trying to inform themselves on a complicated set of issues. I take this responsibility to be informed very seriously. Based upon my research, and that of other citizens, the key points of my opposition are: the magnitude of the two-part elevated boardwalk’s design has only recently reached the general public, as of August, 2022; public awareness of the scope and scale of the project must be raised for further study, commentary, alteration, or elimination over a reasonable period of time; the lack of alternative options offered by the TOB and the design team with relevant studies; the creation of a comprehensive impact study on the fragile ecosystem of two conjoining marshlands and the island, including its visual impact, structural impact, and the impact of increased traffic to and on the island; the use of a small and statistically invalid survey (500 residents) to demonstrate support for the project among the community (78% support), as well as the use of the findings of various planning surveys over the past seven years, without inclusion of the full design, to demonstrate support in the community; greater transparency in the apparent “partnership and support” from two influential institutions, the BCT and the CCMNH; and the premature permitting process scheduled for November, 2022 and funded through fiscal years 2023 and 2024. I will outline these objections more fully below. 1. During this pandemic time, which began in the spring of 2020, many of us have lost regular contact with the goings on about town, voting by mail and not attending town meetings or any other large gatherings. This explains why so many had never understood the full nature of the project until August 15th, the date of the public forum attended by fifty residents, with few commenting, via Zoom. A wider and more comprehensive outreach effort, than presently implemented by the Town, must be initiated, focused on the design, beyond two forums, past and upcoming, and the recent focused survey, which many have never seen. This outreach is necessary in order to more fully inform citizens of the size, scope, and implications, indeed the very magnitude, of the project before any more design work is done and certainly before permitting is started, presently slated to begin in November, 2022. Further design and permitting for the project have also already been approved by the Select Board for fiscal years 2023 & 2024, to be voted on at the Special Town Meeting in November. It should be noted that a focused survey circulated by the Town, made available at apparently two public locations and online this past February, during the period of the pandemic, was not statistically valid: it was not random and not a representative sample of the population with only 500 participants out of a population of approximately10,000 residents, only 390 of whom expressed support. For that reason alone these misleading figures cannot be used by the Town as an accurate representation of resident’s support of the project. The boardwalk project’s initial design and permit phase was approved at the November, 2021 Town Meeting but the design was not presented to the public until August, 2022. 2. Beyond the survey and the recent first forum, community input, as illustrated on the Town’s website for the project, seems to be derived from various sources over the course of seven years- the Coastal Adaptation Strategy, 2016, Next Steps, 2018, Coastal Resource Management Plan, 2019, Brewster Vision Plan, 2019, Select Board Strategic Plan, 2020, and the Brewster Local Comprehensive Plan, 2022, along with input from the Drummer Boy Park Advisory Committee. The Draft Comprehensive Plan, in its stated Actions for the next five years, includes this language- “Complete the permitting and construction of the Wind Island Boardwalk…” which will be voted on in November. A key element of all design plans across the Town’s several projects is to “promote public discourse and collaboration.” For the boardwalk project to emerge as an idea to a full design over the course of seven years might sound comprehensive. Many studies and committees are offered by the Town to support its inception, on the surface perhaps, but not if the citizenry was not informed about the scope of the boardwalk project. It was part of a number of simultaneous projects the Town has undertaken. It appears to have been an idea briefly mentioned on various committees over the past several years and has now emerged more fully formed, cobbled from various plans, committees, and surveys, representing a timeline of research and development. Community involvement outside of these committees is represented under the misleading heading of Community Input to show support for the project. An average citizen will find the project’s inception and progression nearly impossible to follow without intensive research of their own. 3. The Town of Brewster is known widely, and respected, for its commitment to conservation, yet it seems we are moving ahead at breakneck speed while inexplicably reversing the clock on this commitment. Most responsible townships in 2022 are dedicated to restoring sensitive wetlands from poor management practices in the past, yet we are reversing direction by erecting a massive structure in the very heart of two major wetlands threatening a beloved area unique to our town. Many residents find themselves in a state of shock over this project as our elected officials traditionally represent our commitment to protecting and preserving our natural environment so well. We need more time to inform and educate Brewster residents and allow as much time for public “discourse and collaboration” as is required. 4. No alternative analysis has been presented to the public. It should be. There are alternative solutions to the worthy, well intentioned, and desirable goals presented in the Public Forum of August 2022 for increased access and use. The public should be able to see how the boardwalk proposal compares to other alternative solutions and decide if, in fact, it is the best one. An Alternative Analysis is required for permitting so this would not be a frivolous exercise. For example, a short boardwalk from Drummer Boy Park with an observation deck would provide mobility challenged people the experience of being out in the marsh. It is widely agreed that they would be unlikely to go on to Wing Island due to the lack of handicap access beyond the proposed boardwalk. For that reason alone, why have a boardwalk connect to the island for handicap accessibility when a destination observation deck would better suit their needs. A destination observation deck at the end of the DBP’s newly paved pathway would be an ideal location. It could extend a short distance out into Quivett Creek Marsh, providing a sweeping view, while blending in with the natural environment. The reduced size of this structure and its location would protect it from storm surges and thus reduce maintenance coasts. Alternatively, plans are being developed for the newly acquired First Light Beach and its extensive property for recreational use including open space and a 1,000 foot beachfront, with existing extensive parking areas. This is a more suitable location to meet the needs of a diverse population, especially those with physical limitations rather than Wing Island. 5. There is no plan at present for managing the impact to Wing Island, including its upland, the marsh along the dune, the dune itself, and the beach, from the obvious and inevitable increase in visitors. There will be impacts to the land itself and the plants and animals in these habitats. Not to mention the increased burden of attention necessary on various departments within the Town. Citizens need to know the full potential ramifications of this impact and the strategic, long-term plan for addressing the many issues it raises it before accepting the boardwalk proposal. It might be prudent to hire an independent engineering firm, besides Horsley Witten, with no stake in the development, to provide the Town and the public with an environmental impact study for comparative purposes, specific to the impacts on the marsh and island and how this structure with its increased traffic would effect the environment. 6. The proposed boardwalk’s significant visual impact alone should give any reasonable person pause: 10-12 feet above the marsh at low tide and 10 feet wide, a two-part system with an observation deck at the connecting point at mid-marsh, with a lower deck for educational purposes, stairways, ramps, and hundreds of pilings. The open vista that so many enjoy from the mainland, especially driving by on Rt. 6A, and from Wing Island would be lost. The change in a treasured view is not an insignificant matter. The design plan presented by the Town at the public forum, also on its website, highlights the stunning marsh views we know now as if viewed from the proposed boardwalk but never provides a view, in rendering, of the elevated boardwalk within those views, forever marring their natural beauty. 7. The tide’s natural protection of the island provides part of the charm and singular magic of a Wing Island walk. The very fact that one must follow and respect the natural rhythm of the ocean tides is a treasured feature of any hike to the island, rather than an annoyance, however inconvenient it might seem. The natural protection of the turning tide on the island and its encompassing marshlands is precisely how the island has maintained its natural beauty and integrity, providing sanctuary for diverse flora and fauna. Allowing the general public, especially during the summer months, unfettered access to the island twenty-four hours of the day would destroy the balance and integrity of the marsh and the island in very short order. I do not believe this to be responsible stewardship. 8. The Drummer Boy Park has its own distinct public uses as a centrally located outdoor gathering place for fairs, farmers’ markets, concerts, a playground, historical sites, etc. And Wing Island has its own distinct purpose as a quiet wooded walk away from scores of people and as an outdoor classroom for children. Both categories of public need should be respected. A stated purpose of the structure, ease of access for a diverse public by connecting the Town’s conservation properties from Drummer Boy Park to Wing Island, will bypass the natural limits set by the tides. This convenience will increase the traffic to Wing Island exponentially. The 10 foot width of the structure, though allowing enough accessibility for two wheelchairs to pass each other on the structure (without any expectation of them being able to gain access to the island once reached) will provide any number of other vehicles ease of access, such as motorized dirt bikes, off-road hybrid bicycles, etc. There are many significant issues of safety to address with the increase in traffic along a flooded marsh, as well as on the 3,000 feet of beachfront including, camping, fires, littering, sanitation, erosion, drowning, etc. Also of concern would be the continuing cost of maintenance not only for the structure but for excessive littering, sanitation, etc., which will put an enormous burden of the Natural Resources Department, the DPW, and the police and fire departments. Parking is already a major concern, at Drummer Boy Park, CCMNH, and all Town beaches, a concern that is not being addressed with any sustainable strategies at present and must be in place before any expanded use begins. 9. The environmental engineering detailed in the project is misleading. The proposed structure is in FEMA’s VE zone (the boardwalk from Drummer Boy) and the AE zone (the Museum boardwalk). In the Town’s Coastal Resources Management Plan there was no discernable justification for this hazardous placement. Citizens should be informed, with a long-range, realistic, itemized budget, of the significant repair and maintenance costs that would be expected. The Towns of Yarmouth and Sandwich could provide information on such costs, as well as safety issues, based on their experience, though each boardwalk is distinct. 10. The project is further complicated by the involvement of the Brewster Conservation Trust and the Museum of Natural History. Certainly their interest and expertise should be considered, however, they do not have an “arms length” relationship to the proposal. The nature of their involvement requires further scrutiny. The $1million donation from a BCT member, anonymous to the public, with naming rights and the potential of additional funds, after the Town’s grant proposal was rejected is a significant issue. And the privileges provided to the Museum, through relief from access and parking issues, is another. More transparency is necessary from both organizations and would to help allay any suspicions on the part of the public that not everything is known about the nature of their involvement, or support, whether publicly stated or privately so. There is at least the appearance of a conflict of interest on the part of both parties, influential institutions in Town, even if there is a genuine, principled assessment by both that backing the project is appropriate. (We will return the CCMNH’s involvement later.) We would like to know how BCT explains apparent contradictions, such as, supporting the Town’s efforts to acquire open space and yet staying neutral publicly, although perhaps not privately, on the protection and preservation of such a fragile ecosystem. Some BCT board members have stated their support publicly, as individuals, though the organization stated its neutrality in a recent newsletter, directly emailed to subscribers, dated August 30, 2022. They stated that “The BCT has no direct involvement in the planning” of the project and that “as an organization they have not yet taken a position on the project.” Nevertheless at least one trustee has served on advisory (Brewster Vision Plan Advisory Group) and planning (Brewster Vision Plan Committee) committees that included discussions on the boardwalk. We understand that they have exacted a promise from the Town for a conservation restriction on the island as an argument for holding, until such time as it might be used, the $1 million donation from the anonymous BCT member, who we understand is a frequent donor. They argue this promised restriction will protect the island and wetland from future harm when the proposed project itself will increase the likelihood of future harm. Furthermore, the details of the conservation restriction should be made public. And, significantly, as of yet, there is no impact assessment study or management plan for the proposed project’s impacts. The BCT has earned the respect of our community so their support, public or private, carries a lot of weight. Townspeople look to the Brewster Conservation Trust to do due diligence on environmental issues and therefore follow their lead on projects without doing research of their own. Although we may trust the principles of its members and the BCT and TOB often work in partnership with each other, as they should, more transparency is in order on this particular project. The conservation restriction seems a weak argument for this close involvement. These negotiations should be separated. It does raise the question, however, of why Wing Island hasn’t received such a designation already. Additionally, one would hope that the BCT would not feel obligated to support the project due to a personal relationship with the donor or legitimate concern of alienating the donor for any future donations. 11. The TOB should create a new survey focused on the boardwalk proposal to distribute to townspeople, as most did not see the original survey; it should include alternative projects, and be sent by direct mail to all residents of Brewster. The initial survey with 500 respondents showed 78% supporting the project, a total of 390 people. The population of Brewster is approximately 10,000 residents and growing. We have an excellent record on voting. The original sample is not only an inadequate representation of the Town but also its lack of complete understanding and context of this project; therefore these numbers cannot be used by the TOB in a fair manner. In a recent query of a small group of residents, 90% had never heard of the project at all and 100% were opposed to it, a small sample of 40. 12. Delay the permit stage for the boardwalk, which presently is scheduled for November 2022 in order to fully address all of the above. It is the obligation of the Town. Letters, such as this one, have been solicited by the Town with a deadline of by September 2nd and a second public forum is scheduled in October. Hopefully both have been and will be better advertised and therefore attended. Both initiatives are critical to gauging public opinion, addressing, unresolved issues and concerns, as well as shaping the project with direct community input before it moves any farther ahead. It is my opinion this project would forever alter and potentially destroy the natural beauty and health of this fragile, pristine ecosystem by placing an undue and irreversible burden upon it. The sense of place about which so much is written here on Cape Cod, which we all care so much about, is one of the main arguments against this massive and unsightly structure and the traffic it will enable. Wing Island is the “Jewel in the Crown” of Brewster and there is only one way to keep it that way- to preserve and protect it as it stands today for all generations to come. We have the highest regard for John Hay and the early founders of the CCMNH for their prescience and their efforts to conserve this land for us all. It is their legacy. These concerned residents purchased the land the museum sits on today (80 acres) in 1955 and John Hay, in his role on the Brewster Conservation Committee, encouraged the Town to purchase Wing Island in 1961. There are now 320 acres of Town and conservation land within the environs of Stony Brook Valley, Wing Island, and the vast marshlands of Quivett Creek and Paine’s Creek. For an historical perspective that reverberates to the present day I will add this as background. The museum survived a brush with bankruptcy in 2004 with the intervention of a small group of concerned citizens under the leadership of John Hay. It shifted to a small staff of mostly dedicated volunteers. They should be commended for their commitment and for their success but have they truly considered the all-encompassing impacts of this project for present and future generations? They have been guided for over 65 years by the founding principles and mission of the museum’s founders- “To inspire appreciation, understanding and stewardship of our natural environment and wildlife through discovery and learning.” One can imagine that improvements to the walkway would be considered a favorable convenience and access from DBP a welcome solution to their parking issues. However, it is not hard to imagine that the convenience of this “improved” boardwalk with its increased traffic and usage by the public might wreck havoc on their educational programs and threaten their mission. Access to the natural world for education and inspiration is commendable but respecting the carrying capacity of their environment, as well as their organization, is essential. The museum should more fully explain how increased access to the natural world for education and inspiration can be measured against these carrying capacities and their natural limits of sustainability. There could be increased demand for more programs on a small staff once the tidal floods are no longer an impediment. The challenges the museum faces, as well as its aspirations, should be addressed, but will not be easily remedied or resolved in this manner. The construction of the massive and permanent boardwalk could have an irreversible impact on their institution. We’d like to understand, in more detail, the argument for their support of this project. Director Robert Dwyer publicly stated that support during the August 15, 2022 Wing Island Boardwalk Project Public Forum. It appears they might be putting the short-term needs of the museum ahead of the long-term impacts on the ecosystem, which is at the very heart of their educational mission. We are more than certain that John Hay and the founders of the CCMNH would oppose this elevated boardwalk project with all its potentially harmful impact just as vehemently as we do. We have inherited the legacy they left us. What will ours be? As the town offered a quote from the ever eloquent and dedicated conservationist and author John Hay in outlining their project, we offer one perhaps more appropriate and consistent with his worldview. “Although our own, manufactured traffic displaces us every day, it is the calmness, the enormous holding power and containment of the earth ocean that keeps us in check, no matter how far we fly away. We cannot conquer all of space and be citizens of it at the same time.” - John Hay, In the Company of Light Sincerely, Janice E. Riley 32 Old Red Top Road, Brewster, MA Kathy Hunt <kathykrismas@comcast.net> I am not in favor of the purposed boardwalk! Kathy Hunt Brewster Resident Lauren Elliott-Grunes <1mermaidmomma@gmail.com> To whom it may concern, I would like to voice my strong opposition to the proposed wing island boardwalk project. The undisturbed natural beauty of Cape Cod should be preserved for all future generations. In an effort to facilitate handicapped access perhaps paths and the current boards could be improved to allow access to a viewing platform. The island should remain accessible only at low tide. Thank you, Lauren Elliott-Grunes 279 Landing Dr DOTTI JOHNSON <metyermatch@aol.com> do not like the idea of a boardwalk, it’s totally not good for the environment and wild life out there. It’s going to disturb the natural nature and we are kind of wonder why people have to tell the conservation commission this, they should know it!!! So we are totally against it being built and why anyone from Dennis or any other town has any input is crazy. Sincerely, Erik & Dotti Tim Chase <tchase60@gmail.com> Hi… it was my understanding that you’re looking for feedback on the Wings Island boardwalk proposal. BLUF: I fully support the proposed program. There has been quite a bit of discussion about proposed boardwalk on public spaces like FaceBook. I’d like to say that I support the concept fully. The major pushback on the proposal seems to be that too much access will harm the environment. I don’t know how to judge that, but I do think that limiting access by making it inaccessible to the handicapped is not a fair approach. The current access path, two boards side by side through the marsh, is silly. It’s unsafe, it’s limited by tides, it can’t be navigated by the elderly, and to my thinking, it acts as a blockade for marsh animals to cross the boards. Further, whenever I go there I get the feeling that I’m trespassing on the museum’s property; not to mention there’s no parking so you have to hike from Drummer Boy along 6A to the start of the trail. The counter proposal, to build an observation deck, that lets you see Wings Island but not get there also seems pretty silly: Sort of a “look but don’t touch” approach which, again, would favor the able-bodied and limit those with walking problems. If Wings Island is so sensitive that having people there irreparably damages the environment, then we should not allow anyone to it. If it’s deemed safe for the environment for people to enjoy exploring the island, then we should enable everyone in Brewster to be able to visit. Tim Tim Chase 124 Canoe Pond Drive Brewster, MA 02631 tchase60@gmail.com (508)896-0014 Susan Rice <snrice@comcast.net> I am a year round resident of Brewster, having converted a summer home in Brewster Park to a year round residence. The Cape Cod Museum of Natural History has been a favorite destination of my family for many years. We have loved the walk to Wing’s Island and have appreciated the island’s undeveloped state. I realize that sea level rise has limited the access to the island and would like to see the current “board walk” from the museum grounds to the island improved. However, I see no need for a handicap accessible raised boardwalk from Drummer Boy property to the island. Won’t that just lead to “improvements” on the Wing’s Island trail for the handicapped and ruin the unspoiled nature of the island? Please do not proceed with this project! Susan Rice Wendy French <wendyfrench@hotmail.com> I support leaving as much natural in Brewster as possible. Use the donation to build a community center at First Light. ALFRED CALI <alfredcali@icloud.com> I have lived in Brewster since 1972 and have come to love and the understand the fragility of our natural mashes that protect our shoreline and are home to a great diversity of plant and animal life. Sadly it is now at risk to rising sea levels brought on by climate change as well as pollution caused by human development. Additionally, the boardwalk proposal is an outrageous threat to the health of the marsh that will be impacted by the drilling and installation of dozens of helix supports (essentially giant screws) 20 feet deep into the marsh. To suggest that there will not be a destructive impact on the marsh ecosystem is not believable. All planning for this Boardwalk needs to be stopped until environmental impact studies by all town, state and federal authorities charged with the protection of wetlands can evaluate the risk it poses to the health of our marsh environment. The voters of Brewster deserve this information before deciding on whether to proceed with this unnecessary, expensive and damaging project. Thank you for your attention. Marilyn B. Cali 150 Whiffletree Ave West Brewster, MA jessica tsoukalas <cauliflower71@hotmail.com> Hello, I'm writing as a full time Brewster resident against developing the marsh. Since 2020, I have watched the traffic out to the beach at Wing's island increase. With that increase, I have noticed the clay and the beach erode at an alarming rate. What will happen once it is a "destination"? I believe that conservation land should be conserved and protected, not built upon so that more traffic can negatively affect it. When I look north as I walk across the foot bridge to the island, the beauty is in the vast expanse- the pristine marsh with only birds in sight. When that project is finished, that view will be gone. All we will see is more structures and more people. And I know from experience that the birds take off when we come around. If there is a bridge all over the marsh and constant people, it will no longer be a safe place for them. On another point, the marsh and beach is easily accessed by way of Crow's Pasture. How is that not good enough? I believe that the beauty of Brewster should be accessible. There are so many places that are easy to traverse. But it's ok if some aren't. Delicate places in nature are often preserved because of it's inaccessibility. When I can't make it out to the cut at Coast Guard beach in Eastham because of my limitations, I go as far as I can and enjoy it. Maybe I'll go somewhere else. I don't petition the town or buy access. The pandemic has brought an unprecedented amount of people to Cape Cod. Every day I have heard land being cleared for more houses that remain unoccupied, ecosystems destroyed. What's happening here is Ecocide. I agree that the heavy foot traffic from the museum has destroyed the marsh grass around the foot path. If there is a new bridge anywhere, why not there? (If anything should happen at Drummer Boy park, it should be a tree planting initiative. There is hardly any respite from the heat and sun at that park. Why not offset the loss of so many trees in Brewster by planting some there?) I whole heartedly disagree with this plan to develop the marsh. Let's be clear here. Building really isn't conserving, it's developing. Respectfully, Jessica Tsoukalas Stephen Higgins <chefhigby@gmail.com> Stephen Higgins here, 30+ year home owner in Brewster. I love Brewster for it's green space and conservation. We do not need to construct anything in such a pristine place just to give more access and connection. Leave it be and put the money towards the repurposing of the Sea Camp purchase. If you build this it will need constant upkeep and repair. I strongly vote no for this project as most residents of this town do. Thank you for listening to me. Debbie Chapin <debbie.chapin@comcast.net> I like the idea of a boardwalk from the back of the Cape Cod Museum of Natural History ONLY. It makes NO sense to connect one from Drummer Boy Park. Currently you can walk from Drummer Boy Park to the museum where you follow the path. Our disabled family and friends can park at the museum and enjoy the new boardwalk. Do not destroy the bird and sea life habitat at Drummer Boy park. I do not support a Drummer Boy Park boardwalk. I do support one from behind the museum. Deborah Chapin PAULA MILLER <paula.miller2948@gmail.com> Comments on Wing Island "boardwalk" proposal: As an Environmental Scientist by profession, with a history of conservation, environmental planning and town committee work on Cape Cod, I am opposed to the proposed project. The design is preposterous, a "bridge to nowhere" for handicapped citizens, not only an eyesore but likely an environmental nightmare due to construction in sensitive wetlands as well as sanitation and management issues once constructed. However, as a fiscal conservative I have overriding concerns that this will result in an enormous outlay of cash and burden on the taxpayers of Brewster, at a time when we are all being stressed with the expense of several new expensive purchases and projects by the Town. This is compounded by the current unprecedented inflation affecting us all. We do not need higher taxes. This project is not only unaffordable but will undoubtedly lead to an expansion of local government to provide the necessary management and oversight. We do not need a bigger government. I propose that funds that were voted at town meeting, unnoticed by many of us, should be spent planning and executing necessary repairs to improve the existing walkway system. Paula Miller Year Round Resident Member Brewster Republican Town Committee. Fran Weidman-Dahl <fwdahl13@gmail.com> I fully support the plan to build the Wing Island Boardwalk as proposed. At the time the town purchased the conservation land to the east of Drummer Boy Park I remember thinking that a connection to Wing Island would be ideal. For those with disabilities: I regularly see people enjoying the access available on the ramp at Mant's Landing. This would be a wonderful way to access the marsh. We need as many public access areas as we can get, so we can all enjoy the many beauties of the area. Just like the purchase of the Sea Camps, we need to provide as much public space as we can for future generations to enjoy. Fran Weidman-Dahl fwdahl13@gmail.com mark.sampson.wilson@gmail.com All Please do not do this project! It is too big and too much of an intrusion into a pristine and beautiful area. Yes, it may provide additional access, but at what cost? There are any number of reasons to oppose this, but it must also be asked why this is being funded by an anonymous source of funds? This is not in keeping with traditional standards of governance and transparency we have come to associate with the Brewster Town Government. Please, please do not build this boardwalk in the marsh. Silvia and Mark Wilson 70 Bonnie Doone Cartway Tino Kamarck <martin.kamarck@gmail.com> As a resident who supports this project, I urge the Town to quickly provide more detailed information on the actual construction methods in order to address concerns about damage to the marsh. I know that there’s a substantial track record of similar projects undertaken in similarly sensitive environments, and people should be reassured that construction methods and protocols are well established to be minimally invasive and disruptive. To date, it appears that objections to the project fall into 3 categories: aesthetic— the boardwalk itself will be ugly and intrude on views of the marsh; conservationist purity — encouraging more traffic to Wing’s Island and the beach is, per se, a bad thing; and concern about damage to the marsh. The first two are matters of judgment on which reasonable people may differ. The third is a matter of fact which can be addressed with timely and accurate information. Also, I think it would help put more realistic framing on the debate to emphasize that the serious problems with existing access will only get worse and worse. More and more people are using that access not to enjoy the views or appreciate nature but simply to get to the beach — parking illegally, abusing the Museum’s hospitality and overflowing the planks and Wing’s Island trails. Doing nothing is not an option. Tony Freitas <tfreitas2011@gmail.com> I fully support the Wing Island boardwalk proposal. The design and construction methods proposed will assure minimal environmental impact to this delicate ecosystem. Once completed the boardwalk will provide safe access to Wing Island for many Brewster residence who may not have been able to enjoy this Town treasure previously. The raised platform will also protect the marsh and natural wildlife by limiting the impact of visitors on the surface. Currently visitors trekking thru the marsh can inadvertently damage the seagrass roots and natural inhabitants. This project is a perfect example of using resources to ensure Town of Brewster public land can be enjoyed by all residents, not just those lucky enough to abut the marsh. Tony Freitas 120 Winterhoff Trail. Cate O'Neill <catoinma@hotmail.com> To Whom It May Concern, I would like to register my opposition to the new proposed boardwalks at Wing Island and Quivett Marsh. Repair of the existing boardwalk at CCMNH was voted on at town meeting and I voted for it. Never could I have imagined the proposal that was presented on August 15th. Not necessary and not wanted by me and many others. I can’t imagine the possible damage the proposed construction could do to this beautiful and fragile ecosystem. I believe that much more thought and discussion needs to occur before any further action and I especially would ask that a conservation restriction needs to be immediately sought to protect the island. Further, I believe it is crucial to have an environmental impact study done which can inform citizens, as well as town officials, as to the ramifications of this massive, and I believe, unnecessary project. It is our responsibility to respect and protect this beautiful part of the coast. Please listen to these concerns and let us all learn much more before we risk damaging that which we promised to conserve. Respectfully, Cate O’Neill sue sullivan <suzesull@gmail.com> I have only recently become aware of the proposed boardwalk across Quivet Marsh to Wing Island. After attending a meeting of 60 plus concerned citizens at Drummer Boy Park last evening, I would like to make the following comments: 1. There has not been enough publicity and widely distributed information to Brewster citizens. I heard only this morning that this is the final day for public comment. Please extend the period allowed and publicize it widely. 2. With so much evidence of well intentioned plans having ecological wreckage as a consequence, I would like to see an environmental impact study included in the public information effort. 3. Both Quivet Marsh and Wing Island are ecologically fragile and a treasure to the town of Brewster. I love to walk this trail and immerse my whole being in the stunning natural beauty. While I appreciate the concern to bring this experience to those who have difficulty accessing this experience, I believe adequate protections should be in place with concrete ways to enforce them. Respectfully, Suzanne Sullivan 192 Main Street Brewster, MA Joanne Hughes <joanneoncape@aol.com> Thank you for the opportunity to comment. I trust that the Town committees developing this plan as directed by town meeting have in mind the best interest of the people of Brewster. I support this project with this suggestion. Since the boardwalk will lead to paths on the island unsuitable for wheelchairs I would like to see the scale ( width) of the boardwalk decreased. However, I would welcome handicap accessible viewing platforms. Joanne Hughes 122 Consodine Rd Brewster Amy Mason <helloamymason@gmail.com> Good Morning, Although public access to Wing Island could be a positive thing, we are really opposed to the proposed construction of this enormous boardwalk for visual, environmental, and financial reasons at this time. We've just acquired the Sea Camps properties with plans incomplete, and now adding this new project as well? It's too much! More time for public information would be really appreciated, like environmental impact studies and financial outlooks for future maintenance as well as construction. Thank you, Amy & David Mason amy mason, artist/designer 508-246-4398 helloamymason@gmail.com amymasondesign.com Tom Hughes <htom798@aol.com> The town needs to counter the negative publicity on social media. I think the idea of a mega project is a scare tactic. What reassurance can we provide that the project will be a modest access improvement and nothing more? Tom Hughes JudyLagergren <judylagergren@gmail.com> I would like to give you my thoughts on the Brewster Boardwalk Project. Although it may be a project worth looking into down the road I do oppose it at this time. Being familiar with the Sandwich Boardwalk and its issues after most major storms and the cost to fix, rebuild etc. I don’t believe it would be a one cost project. The town purchased the beautiful Sea Camps properties and I don’t believe a plan is in place or the cost of any plans finalized. I don’t feel the town should be taking on another costly project at this time. Thank you to those involved in opening up First Light Beach for this summer. I have enjoyed it and look forward to the potential plans for the properties, lets focus on that right now. Respectfully, Judy Lagergren Brewster RTC Member 177 Old Long Pond Rd Shelly Hippler-Conway <shelly@capeconways.com> We would like to log our opposition to opening every inch of this precious Cape to increased public access. Wildlife deserves what disappearing undeveloped or “underdeveloped” space remains! Ron Essig <rjessig@gmail.com> Hello, Thank you for the opportunity to comment. I live seasonally at 154 Crowells Bog Road, Brewster. I am in favor of upgrading the existing straight path to Wing Island to a boardwalk at as low a height as is considered storm proof. I am not in favor of the new boardwalk from Drummer Boy Park across the marsh. Instead of that, the Town should seek permission from the three impacted landowners to construct a path along the saltmarsh edge. If that effort fails, then visitors should simply be directed to walk along the Rt 6A sidewalk to get to the Natural History Museum property. I don't see the boardwalk extension construction and maintenance as a good use of Town funds. Ron Essig Paula <pspariseau@gmail.com> I am writing to comment on the Town's proposal to construct an elevated boardwalk on the environmentally sensitive Quivett Creek marshes. Before providing comments, I would like to say that I was not aware of the August 15 zoom public forum until after the fact and, thus, have a question about the process - How were Brewster residents notified in advance of the forum and how will we be notified of future public forums on this issue? I have watched the video of that forum, reviewed the power point presentation slides, and read the Drummer Boy Park updated Master Plan. My comments and questions follow the order of the slides. Slide #2: The Brewster Conservation Trust (BCT) logo appears alongside those of the Town, CCMNH, and Horsley Witten. I believe I understand the Museum's involvement, but I would like more information on BCT's role. To a viewer watching the forum live and to someone such as myself who saw and read the presentation on the Town's website after the fact, it would appear that BCT is an active participant if not a supporter in this project. But, according to an email I received from BCT on August 30, it “has no direct involvement in the planning and like many of you, first saw the concept plan during the recent public forum. As an organization, BCT has not yet taken a position on the project....” The Town's presentation and BCT's email seem to be sending conflicting messages. So my questions are these:Was BCT asked if its logo could be used on the presentation? What has been their involvement, active or passive, direct or indirect, in the boardwalk discussions and planning stages? If BCT is, as it states, simply a 'conduit' or middleman if you will (like a bank) through which a private donation is given to the Town towards the planning costs, that would hardly warrant its logo on the presentation to give the appearance of its support. Slide #4: This slide refers to the 2021 TM-adopted updated Drummer Boy Park (DBP) Master Plan . Section 2.4 of that Master Plan addresses “Opportunities and Constraints.” Figure 2.2 of the Master Plan shows some of the constraints: o One such constraint are the northeast winter storm winds that come barreling down the marsh off the bay. Figure 2-2 shows those winds heading directly towards the location of the proposed elevated boardwalk from DBP. I did not hear or read anything directly pertinent in the Forum Presentation that adequately addressed how the proposed boardwalk, and thus the sensitive salt marsh, would not be a potential casualty of those winds, which can reach almost hurricane force in strength. More research needs to be done and information provided addressing how this boardwalk, unlike similar ones, will be able to withstand such storms. o Another constraint are the 50' and 100' wetland buffer zones, which are critical to maintaining the health and productivity of the salt marsh wetlands. Because these zones are specially protected areas, human activity should be limited. The proposed boardwalk is within both zones. o Thirdly, one portion of the proposed boardwalk would start on the adjoining Town owned property on which BCT holds a conservation restriction (CR). The CR prohibits the Town from certain activites while carving out permitted uses.It would be helpful if the Town would put a copy of that publicly recorded CR on its Wing Island Boardwalk Project page as a reference document so Brewster residents can better understand how the proposed boardwalk would or would not align with the CR's 'do's and don'ts.' Section 4.1 of the Master Plan lists many laudable goals. One such goal is to 'enhance the views of the bay.' More explicitly, one of the Design Criteria identified in the Master Plan was that “views of the bay are not to be blocked.” Please explain and show how a 7-10 foot elevated 720' long boardwalk (note: this figure is taken from Slide #22), with approximately 230 helical poles (note: this figure is taken from a CapeCodChronicle article quoting the president of Horsley Witten) driven 20' down into the marsh, with an additional several feet of side railings, will not block the views of the bay. Slides #6 and 7: Alignment with community priorities. This comment goes to how the presentation was prepared and how it could be perceived. When words are bolded in a presentation it is for effect, emphasis and/or importance, with the intent that the viewers' eyes will be drawn to those words in bold, and unbolded words are, if not extraneous, less important to the discussion. In my opinion, it was inappropriate and possibly misleading to Brewster residents not to put in bold letters the word 'possible' in the statements that the Town should “evaluate...possible boardwalk modifications to access Wing Island” and “encourage expanded utilization of Drummer Boy Park for recreational purposes, including possible development of walkway to Wing Island.” That word – possible - is very important, if not critical, to the discussion. More accurately stated, the priorities are not to modify or develop the boardwalk, but rather to evaluate the possibility of such actions. That is a very important distinction. Surely the Town's newly acquired Sea Camps property, rather than disturbing the sensitive salt marsh, lends itself directly to addressing the priorities of maintaining and enhancing beach access and improving access for those with limited mobility Slide #9: Goal #4- Preserve Habitat by placing a permanent CR and not having visitors “frequently” being forced to walk on the marsh which negatively impacts the resource. First, let me address the CR possibility. If the Town wants to place a permanent CR on the salt marsh wetlands and Wing Island upland with the CR to be held by BCT, it can set that process in motion right now, subject to certain statutorily required approvals. And here's where I think a little background is important to the discussion. Approximately 20 years ago, the neighboring Town of Dennis had the opportunity to protect an additional large chunk of Crowes Pasture which, as you know, is on the northwest side of Quivett Creek. It was an expensive endeavor but, with the help of significant State and Federal grant money and, not insignificantly, the cooperation of the Town of Brewster, the land was acquired and protected which, equally importantly, helps to preserve and maintain the health of Quivett Creek and its surrounding marshes. As part of that overall project, the Town of Brewster agreed to place a CR on 120 acres of Town-owned salt marsh on the southeast side of Quivett Creek, with the CR held by the State Dept of Conservation and Recreation. As a practical matter, was that CR needed to protect the salt marsh from development? Of course not. But it was an important and necessary component of the project and by doing so the Town of Brewster demonstrated how seriously it took the issue of preserving the health of the Quivett Creek salt marshes. Those 120 acres directly abut and connect to the Town of Brewster's salt marsh and Wing Island properties under discussion as part of the proposed boardwalk project. Can these currently 'unprotected' salt marshes be developed? Again, as a practical matter, no they cannot. Can the Wing Island upland be developed? A trickier question because it is upland, but it is surrounded by marsh and inaccessible except through the marsh so, again, as a practical matter, it cannot be developed. So, practically speaking, stating that the habitat will be preserved by placing a permanent CR on it is a bit misleading to Brewster residents. Having said that, however, I would applaud the Town placing a permanent CR on all of that land, protecting it and prohibiting any type of structure, including a boardwalk, to demonstrate again its commitment to preserving the health of the marsh. As for visitors being forced to walk on the marsh - first off, nobody is forced to walk out to Wing Island or to walk on the marsh. And if the current walkway is under water at high tide, the marsh is going to be very very wet. So walking on the marsh doesn't solve the visitors' perceived problem of keeping their feet dry. And while I acknowledge it would be tough if not impossible to police, there is a simple educational solution to address putting visitors on notice that, with rare exception, for only about 2 hours once a day during daylight hours (and keep in mind that those two hours could be early in the morning or late in the day when the trails are rarely if ever used), the walkway will be under water. Visible, easily readable and understandable signage should be posted at the beginning of the existing walkway putting visitors on notice that they must stay on the walkway, should be prepared to get their feet wet, and are prohibited from walking on the marsh. Which leads me to... Slide #10: Goal #5 – Climate Change Adaptation. Contrary to what is stated, access to the marsh and Wing Island is never 'blocked' even at high tide. It is simply a matter of being prepared for it. I am sure the Town is aware of a similar situation at MassAudubon's Wellfleet Bay Sanctuary where a low boardwalk over the tidal marsh leads out to the beach area. And because it is subject to tidal flow it can be underwater at high tide. But that has not prevented many, many visitors, I would guess many times more visitors than go to Wing Island, from enjoying the walk out and back to the beach, even at high tide. What's a little water on a beautiful summer Cape Cod day! Slide #11: DBP Master Plan Goals. One goal is to “enhance” the views of the bay. More specifically, the DBP concept plan narrative, Figure 3-3 (the Conceptual Site Plan), and the Recommended Master Plan all state that enhancing those views was to be accomplished by the “selective pruning of vegetation.” It is explicitly stated that those views were not to be blocked. Slide #12: To say that there is flooding twice a day at high tide, while factually correct, would lead people to believe that twice a day they would not be able to get out to Wing Island. When in reality, however, since the high tides are about 11-12 hours apart, rarely would there ever be two high tides during daylight hours when visitors want to access Wing Island, and even then, they still could get to Wing Island, but might get a bit wet. Slide #15: Improving Connections. In my opinion, this slide misses an important point. The fact is that Wing Island and the surrounding marshes are a Town jewel. The question for the Town is whether that jewel should be protected and cherished, or be tarnished. Increasing access is a broad, general statement, but when applied to specific properties it is not always an improvement. It can be just the opposite, bringing increased trash, increased noise, increased dog usage on or off leash, just to name a few negative impacts. Is that what the Town wants for Wing Island and the sensitive marshes? Slides #23 and 25: View N. It is so telling that with all of the concept design plans, no thought appears to have been given to preparing a rendering of what the elevated boardwalk with side railings would look like from various locations, such as from 6A or from the end of the woodland path looking northeast towards the other section of proposed boardwalk leading to Wing Island. I'm sure a local artist or the Town's engineering consulting firm could prepare that. Slide #27: Low Impact Structural Design. Horsley Witten's president is quoted in the Chronicle as saying there will be approximately 230 poles “with virtually no impact to the bog itself.” And perhaps that is true for each individual pole driven into the sensitive salt marsh. I do not know; I'm neither engineer nor scientist. What I do know, what common sense tells me, is that the sum is greater than the individual parts. And it stretches the imagination that 230 poles will have only 'minimal impact' on the salt marsh. Where is the study that addresses the collective impact, not the individual impact? In fact, where is the data that says even one pole will have minimal impact? And what is that minimal impact, and how was it determined and calculated? Finally, I would like to bring up two other issues for the Town to consider: One is the annual maintenance costs of the structure and any capital costs that go beyond “simple” maintenance, and how that would be funded. Another is the CCMNH parking issue. I understand the CCMNH is frustrated that non-members are using its parking lot to access the Town's Wing Island property. But that is a private matter for the CCMNH to resolve as any private landowner would. I also understand that it may not want to be the 'bad guy' and have cars ticketed and/or towed. But building this boardwalk would be an expensive, non-environmentally sensitive instance of the tail wagging the dog. And, in the end, let us be realistic. It will not solve the Museum's parking problem, and likely will only exacerbate it, because 'build it and they will come.' How much easier to use the Museum lot to get to that fancy new Wing Island boardwalk than to park at DBP, walk uphill through the woodland path, to a boardwalk that will connect with the boardwalk section they could have accessed more directly from the Museum in the first place. I urge the Town, as it did 20 years ago, to demonstrate its commitment to preserving the integrity of the Quivett marshes. This time by recognizing the environmental and visual perils of constructing an elevated boardwalk over these marshes, and by instead looking to other more appropriate Town owned properties to address beach accessibility issues. Thank-you for allowing me to submit these comments and add to the Wing Island proposed boardwalk discussion. Paula Pariseau 24 Bridle Path Rd Susan Forward <susanforward@aol.com> By way of introduction,I have been a part time resident of Brewster since 1985. I live on the edge of the Punkhorn. My family and I chose to leave Dennis in favor of Brewster’s quaint authentic ‘old Cape Cod’ appeal. It’s changed a lot over the years, buzzing like a bee hive in the summer. I avoid the beaches so I was thrilled and thankful that the Town acquired a resident only beach. I hope we will keep it as natural and well cared for as the previous landholders. On that note, there is nothing natural or authentic about the boardwalk proposal, and you all must realize this by now, unless there’s some spiked cool-aid being passed out at Town Hall meetings. I am stunned that a deep, high and wide structure, built on a salt marsh, is considered unobtrusive and un-impactful. We don’t need it, and moreover we shouldn’t want it. Leave it to the wildlife to enjoy. We are intruding on their habitat. Respectfully, Susan Forward 104 Turning Mill Rd Brewster, MA Meridith Baier <mimsbrewster@gmail.com> Dear Members, Sadly, I view this project as inconsistent with conservation and inappropriate in its detrimental impact on the marshland and its surroundings. There are other areas that would be more appropriate to support accessibility, equity, and education without the consequence of developing this protected site. In other words, I am not in favor of this project. Thank you, Meridith Baier 2663 Main St Marc Desrosiers <mdesros234@aol.com> My initial thoughts have leaned away from supporting such an endeavor but after further consideration I feel the positives would out weigh the negatives. I enjoy many of the Brewster trails and have seen the good and bad of people who utilize the properties. Bottom line....people should enjoy the benefits of such environmental beauty. We need to ensure we do a stellar job maintaining this coastal treasure. My greatest fear is visitor abuse (primarily off trail damage, littering and uncontrolled dog access). Thank you MD Gwen Pelletier <gwen.pell@outlook.com> I strongly support the proposal for a boardwalk from Drummer Boy Park to Wing Island. It opens an area accessible to handicapped and physically impaired residents of our town and creates a safer access to the rest of us through Town Owned property. I look forward to voting YES at Town Meeting Gwen Pelletier 1247 Long Pond Road 508-280-7871 gwen.pell@outlook.com Meghan Delman <megdelman@yahoo.com> Good Afternoon, I would like to email in regards to the proposed boardwalk from Drummer Boy Park. As a Brewster resident I am not in favor of this project. I love the old charm our town has to offer and we have so many magical ecological recreational areas for locals and tourists to explore. I think this project would interfere with a sensitive habitat and the ecology of the immediate area as well as surrounding areas and is unnecessary. While I understand the appeal and accessibility this project could offer, I also see many cons as well. Thank you. Best, ~Meghan Delman Katie Miller Jacobus <katie.m.jacobus@gmail.com> I am very much in favor of this proposed boardwalk project. It would provide access to a little used gem in Brewster, for many more of our citizens. From what I understand, the boardwalk would provide wheelchair access for people to enjoy the beauty of the marsh. Currently, there is so little wheelchair access to beaches, with the limited number of special beach chairs available. I do not think this boardwalk would burden the space, as many people will prefer to avoid the walk, and continue to go to those beaches that have adjacent parking lots. It is also notable that there is at least one very generous offer from a private donor that would help offset the costs. I look forward to hearing more about this at the October forum. In the meantime, I am concerned that many people are just hearing about this, as the public comment period is ending. Are there any thoughts to extend public comment? Or will there be more public comment considered during and after the next forum? Thank you. Best, Katie Katie Miller Jacobus 60 King Philip Rd 508-237-6642 elenita <elenita@meganet.net> Dear Select Board: I (Elenita) have spoken in support of the general idea of a better boardwalk to Wing Island, at the earlier hearing on the project. I would like to clarify my comments at this time. Both my spouse, Judy Fenner, and I continue to support the expansion of opportunity for our residents and visitors with mobility challenges to visit this marsh, both to experience the ever-changing and quite lovely views and to learn about and see first-hand the ways the life of the marsh interacts with the surging tides and ecology of the shoreline. Even if handicap access on Wing Island itself is not feasible, that doesn't mean people with limited mobility should be denied the opportunity that is available to the majority of our town population to experience the salt marsh's wonders. Nor should any child in our schools be unable to accompany her or his class on a field trip to the marsh because access is only available to the nimble and able-bodied. The current "boardwalk" is literally a few boards and while it has a certain rustic charm, its limitations, instability, failings, and the fact that it's underwater for a portion of the day do indicate that some kind of improvement is necessary. We do support an improved, wider, more secure boardwalk. We do NOT support the minor highway that is currently being proposed, however. We measured 10 feet wide in our living room -- it's way out of proportion to what is needed, even if you wanted something wide enough for two wheelchairs to pass each other. Six feet would provide plenty of passing room, or a four foot wide board walk with occasional "passing zones" that are wider. Plus, it doesn't need to be fifteen feet above the level of the marsh. You won't be able to see anything happening in the marsh from that height, so forget learning anything about marshlife. Why can't it be a couple of feet above the marsh? Just high enough to entice a kid to lie down on her stomach and watch the critters below her skittering around in the marsh muck. Don't try to build it to last for a hundred years: it's unprotected from the sea so a good northeaster is going to damage it anyway and we'll be replacing boards with most big storms. And as for railings, if it's lower, it might not need such high nor massive railings. If railings are needed, then wire mesh, that won't block the view as wooden railings will, would be far better. Narrower, lower to the marsh, with more "transparent" railings -- in short, far less intrusive than the giant causeway that is currently proposed -- THAT is what we support. We are blessed to live in the Punkhorn, one of the town's precious conservation areas, and we are please to share it with other residents and many visitors to the town. The marsh between Route 6A and Wing Island is a similar treasure and ought to be accessible to all our residents. Sometimes, if you have an extra million dollars lying around, it isn't always a good idea to spend it just because it's there. A scaled-down version of the boardwalk plan would be better and cost less, too, leaving money for maintaining it! A win-win. Thank you for including our comments in your consideration of revising the boardwalk proposal as it now stands. Elenita Muñiz and Judith A. Fenner 441 West Gate Road, Brewster Rick Schwartz <jrs4676@yahoo.com> Why ruin a beautiful view w this terrible idea. You can only make things worse by going forward with this Faythe Ellis <Faythe.Ellis@outlook.com> 95 Rocky Hill Road Brewster, MA 02631 September 2, 2022 Dear Select Board, Unlike many, I have been aware of the proposed access to Wing Island from Drummer Boy park for some time. As a concept, it originally seemed like a good idea with great intentions, particularly the accommodation for people with disabilities. One of my late father’s biggest frustrations was his inability to go onto Ellis Landing beach steps from his home as his mobility and vision deteriorated. I am absolutely supportive of efforts to build infrastructure that is ADA accessible where it makes sense. I support the boardwalk intentions regarding accessibility. But of course, the devil is in the details. After viewing the forum, my concerns about the impact on the marsh and the island mean that I do not support this initial design. The marsh is a major element in the town’s coastal resiliency program. It makes no sense to put a rigid structure across an environment that is subject to extremes of flooding, temperature, winds and weather – all of which are expected to intensify in the coming years. There will be predictable damage to the structure – and if there is a plan for performing and paying for ongoing maintenance, I missed it in the presentation. There is no environmental upside to increased human activity on Wing Island. This project, with its enhanced public access for people, dogs, dirt bikes and mischief makers is sure to degrade this beloved place. Posted signs with Do’s and Don’ts are useless without enforcement. Free parking, and easy access to a remote location, all amplified by social media, are a recipe for environmental disaster. Remember the recent Treasure Hunt that led folks to dig holes all over the island? Cautionary tales from last week’s Cape Cod Chronicle talk about damage people have done to Kent’s Point in Orleans and Cow Yard Landing in Chatham. Let’s err on the side of caution and conservation – putting more unsupervised people in an environmentally fragile area is a bad idea. Once this is built, there is no going back. My hope is that the town will significantly scale back this project. I would consider supporting ADA accessible viewing platforms overlooking the marsh that are accessed via Drummer Boy Park. Keep access to the island itself subject to tidal timing – I think that’s part of what makes visiting it so special. There are many miles of trails on Brewster Open Space that could be made more accessible – I advocate for spending donor money to build thoughtful infrastructure in those more sheltered locations. Any revisions or “next step” forums about this should include plans for managing any new structures - oversight responsibility, problem resolution, maintenance and repair budgeting, and proactive environmental management procedures to protect the fragile marsh and island. Let’s step back and scale back this proposal. Very truly yours, Faythe Ellis Margretta Morris <megmorris141@gmail.com> My husband, Dennis W. Morris, and I are in favor of the proposed boardwalk. We believe ultimately, it would prevent some of the degradation that takes place daily when people mis-judge the tides and tramp through the marsh. We also believe that everyone should have an equal opportunity to visit and enjoy Wing Island regardless of their age or physical capabilities. We realize some are advocating for keeping it "pristine," but isn't that grossly unfair to people who currently cannot access the site due to no fault of their own? Keeping the area pristine is important and can be managed with oversight and good solid waste practices (i.e. probably need some trash cans out on the island). Brewster prides itself on providing access to all; a boardwalk out to Wing Island will accommodate all people and certainly aligns with our community priorities which were based upon community input for several years running. You have our full support. Margretta E Morris Dennis W. Morris Dr. Chris Outwin <cmoutwin@gmail.com> To: The Review Subcommittee for the Construction of the Wing Island Bridge I wish to state unequivocally, my most strident opposition to any development at Drummer Boy Park and The Wing Island Marsh. In particular, I am opposed to the bridge across the marsh. This was always intended to be protected area when early conservationist like John Hay, Ruth Eddy, Mary Louise Eddy and Lucy Chapman were fighting to preserve the ecological health of the Paine Creek and Quivett Creek Estuary. This particular stretch of marsh is critical to the sustenance of a wide array of marine life that have as their source the outflow from these marshes. The suggestion that this bridge won’t have a negative impact on the health of the marsh is an ill considered hypothesis advanced to support a recreationist approach to the use of Drummer Boy, The Marsh, and Wing Island. Preserve and Conserve Drummer Boy, the marsh, and Wing Island by doing nothing. Respectfully Submitted, Christopher M. Outwin 201 Red Top Rd Brewster, MA 02631 Nancy Johnson <mathlc@aol.com> We would like to express our concern about the scope and impact of the proposed WI Boardwalk project. It is a sizable intrusion into one of the gems of Brewster and should be carefully reviewed and approved by the voters of Brewster. Some of our observations: 1.There currently is a connector between Drummer Boy park and the access point to Wing Island - it is the sidewalk along Rt 6A. Visitors to WI will appreciate the extra steps to get there vs the proposed towering interference to today’s pristine views of the marsh. 2.The “78% of 501 residents who favor this project “ represents those who supported “ a trail/ boardwalk” and were not aware of the present plan to build a 450 foot long by 10 foot wide boardwalk that will rise over 14 feet above the marsh. By providing an artist rendition of the proposed boardwalk and its true impact on the beautiful views provided in the August 15 forum, the people of Brewster will be shown an honest picture of the project’s impact. 3.Have the abutters to DB park been asked to consider providing foot path access to the existing WI walkway as an alternative to a massive boardwalk? 4.Mobility impaired individuals will be much better served by a platform overlooking the marsh in the northeast corner of DB park. This proposed project will not allow these individuals to venture further onto WI without special assistance, so the boardwalk construction and substantial width is of little benefit to them. Show them an artist rendition of the view looking south from WI with the proposed connector to DB park rising over the marsh. That is what they will be seeing on their return from a dead end. If you truly intend to support the mobility impaired, provide them with an accessible vista at the park and make the majority of the parking handicap only. 5.The existing access across the marsh from CCMNH should be improved but with a width of no more than 5 - 6 feet. Any wider is overkill. 6.Wing Island is a jewel because of its natural beauty accessed by hiking trails. Flooding it with a horde of visitors and with no plans for policing, trash disposal, rest rooms, and ongoing funding - will destroy it for everyone. Let’s make sure we are providing the best solution for all of Brewster. Respectfully, Bruce and Nancy Johnson 72 Johnson Cartway Brewster Eric & Rheanna Hastings <hastingsfamily126@gmail.com> Dear Selectboard Members, I am writing to share my thoughts and opinion on the proposed boardwalk. I have been attending and following the Concerned Citizens Meetings at Drummer Boy park, now called “Stop the Boardwalk, Save Wing Island”, both as a citizen of Brewster and as the current Chair of the BRTC Local Issues Subcommittee. My thought and opinion are that the current proposal is too large and unnecessary. Some of the concerns I share with the group include: • Has there been a feasibility study? • Disruption to wildlife • Funding and maintenance costs • Process for voters at Town Meeting • Trash and human waste/port-a-potties • Public safety • Improve the boardwalk from the museum instead • Consider alternative to boardwalk; viewing platform with wheelchair accessibility I think that the current boardwalk design is far too large. When the folks who are using it with wheelchairs do get out there, there won’t be anywhere for them to go. That is why an alternative to the boardwalk such as a viewing platform would be better suited. I’m very concerned about trash accumulating with people walking back and forth and spending time on the beach, which then will have to be maintained and at an ongoing cost to the town. I also think it will disrupt the wildlife and if the posts are pre-treated that will leech chemicals into the water. We just purchased the Sea Camp property, which I voted in favor of, and we have a lot of access to beaches and trails in Brewster. I was thinking outside the box and that if the donor was approached with some alternative priority needs they may be interested in putting their donation towards something else. I’m sure there are other needs we have in Brewster besides these but the two I hear most often among the community when I speak with or see comments on the Brewster Community Facebook Space are that of Affordable Housing for year round and seasonal working residents and a Community Center. I recently saw an article of a town in Arizona that decided to incentivize their town Airbnb owners to rent to local year round and seasonal workers. Perhaps we could consider doing something similar. A donation to either of these initiatives would be greatly beneficial. Link to housing article from Sedona, AZ - https://www.thecentersquare.com/arizona/sedona-taxpayers- to-pay-airbnbs-to-house-local-workers-instead/article_993b5346-19d9-11ed-99d3- 97a3acc10ae6.amp.html Thank you for your time and consideration on these matters. Respectfully, Rheanna Hastings Year Round Resisdent Chair, RTC Local Issues Subcommittee Catherine Cardamone <crcardamone@comcast.net> Hi, Because of a month of family, we just found out about the project. I watched the video of the meeting today. I have to say that I am not in favor of the proposed project. I agree that we should try to make this area more handicap accessible, but I agree with the residents that felt it would really hurt the beautiful view of that area. A 12’ high boardwalk will ruin this view which is in my opinion the most beautiful in Brewster. We love Wing Island as is, but feel the walk needs to be improved even if we can only use it during low-tide. Catherine Cardamone 93 Mates Way Brewster Sav5109 <sav5109@aol.com> As the plan is presented right now I am very much against it. If the plans were cut back a lot I could see it being a positive thing. I am sure you are getting many people writing in worrying about the negative impact on the marsh as well as Wing Island. I will skip over that aspect. Below are some comments. - I didn’t know about the survey. At the meeting they said it was posted online, at the town offices and some other town buildings. I haven’t had the need to go on the town website or to any town office. I would think posting a sign at Drummer Boy park to let people know would have gotten you a much wider range of people and views. I admit I don’t know how the survey was worded but to claim 80% of the respondents were in favor of access to Wing Island from Drummer Boy means anything statistically as far as this current plan is inaccurate. - During the online meeting it was mentioned a few times that respondents to the survey wanted easier access for the elderly and handicapped. This plan does almost nothing to increase that access. Will anyone with mobility issues park at Drummer Boy , make it from their car across the grass, then take the path through conservation and then up the ramp onto the boardwalk? Trying to claim this is a positive for the elderly and handicapped is disingenuous. -A simpler, cheaper and Much better option is to put a viewing platform right at ground level at the very back of the park. An opening and path are already cut out and anyone with mobility issues instead of trying to avoid roots ,dips etc cutting through conservation could stay on the paved parking area, onto the paved sidewalk to the back of the park. The short path to the viewing platform could easily be made safe. As far as access to Wing Island. The path next to the museum from 6A to the marsh needs an upgrade. The path is uneven with rocks and roots . After a rain or a lot of foot traffic it can be slippery. The shells only exacerbate things. Level it out. It would be much easier to park in Drummer boy close to 6A and take the short walk down the sidewalk to a well maintained path then cutting through conservation to an unnecessary additional boardwalk. -As far as the boardwalk across the marsh. Forget the giant bridge being proposed. Beyond the conservation issues it would be a huge eyesore and ruin views from both sides. When I heard the idea of a boardwalk I pictured an improved version of the two plank thing that is there now. Do something that’s maybe 4 planks wide designer better that would sit the same as the current one. It would improve access for everyone that uses it now and would cost a fraction of the proposed one so then we wouldn’t have to worry about planning for the possibility of water levels rising . It could be inexpensively Repaired or replaced when needed. -To build this giant bridge to try to get more people to use the beaches on Wing Island doesn’t make sense. There is no practical way to prevent people who don’t want to pay for a beach sticker from using the park as free access. Right now there are a handful of Art and Craft shows each summer. I believe those are a part of Brewster and many many people attend them . But, on those weekends parking is tough. How many additional cars are you hoping to add from people spending the day at the free beach? Even on Tuesdays with the small flea market parking is tight. Between, the people coming for the play ground, people coming to walk, to look at the windmill etc adding a bunch of cars of people using the park as solely a parking lot as a cut through for a free beach would be a huge mistake. A viewing platform at the back of the park, even a second viewing platform along side the current entrance to to walk across the marsh as well as improving and maintaining the path along side the museum would give everyone access to a great view and allow a much easier and safer path to Wing Island. Why take the needless environmental risk, add the cost of maintaining this giant structure as well as the financial risk if it gets seriously damaged in a storm. I see nothing positive as the plan currently stands. Thank you, Tim Savage 26 Edwards Dr Erin Hilley <ehilley@msn.com> Dear Select Board, I believe that this public comment is for the design of the project and less so for whether one is for or against. I have no negative comment on the design. I am familiar with helical piers for use in pier construction and their minimal impact on salt marshes. I know that Horsley and Witten is a reputable and skilled firm. I do want to comment on my stance for what it’s worth. I don’t believe that people need or should have the ability to access all places all the time. I don’t think that this mentality is benefiting our natural systems and ultimately our ongoing existence -need for resources, clean water, etc. I believe that some special places should remain limited access. I do worry that a boardwalk will increase traffic on the island and negatively impact wildlife, the fringing saltmarsh, and the pristine place -in aesthetic and function. I am neither for or against. If it happens, I do think that many people, especially those mobility challenged, will get great enjoyment from the boardwalk and the views. I don’t know if there will be much greater use and impact to the Island. If it doesn’t happen, I am fine with that. I do think that the existing boardwalk has sufficed for many years. It’s as I remember it from when I was a kid. I think that the land and wildlife benefits from the existing boardwalk not being traversable at all times (high tides). If overwhelming citizen pushback was to prevent the boardwalk from getting constructed, what about a raised platform with benches and viewing? This doesn’t get to the Museum parking issue. I am hugely surprised by the negative comments in regards to this project that I read on the Brewster Community FB Page that are platformed on the increased access to a loved treasure that may be impacted by the accessibility. I didn’t know that there were so many people that had these views which are similar to mine since I was a young child. However, I also understand that getting people out to see these places increases their support to conserve and protect and this is a nice opportunity for that. I do not like the negative comments directed to the Select Board and town officials that suggest secrecy and ill-process. From what I can tell, town officials are carrying out the vision plan etc., that the citizens provided input. Thank you. Not an easy job. Sincerely, Erin Hilley 774-722-0556 ehilley@msn.com John Lamb <john@lambs.net> Thank you all for pushing forward with the development of this idea. It is well worth investigating, as it could enable many more people to get to Brewster's most remote, attractive and underutilised beach area and simultaneously give the Museum of Natural History stable year round access for all its excellent research and educational programs. I support the idea of the separate connection from Drummer Boy Park because it allows us to separate the "mainland" vehicle/people logistics for beach/hike only traffic from that for museum program traffic. Although significantly less "invasive", Museum activities will be seriously impaired if we only build a robust board-walk on the existing route. Thank you also for conducting clear open reviews in the earlier stages of design, allowing for all kinds of resident and user input, to responsively adjust the design criteria before moving into detailed design. I've watched the August 15 meeting video and reviewed the presentation document. Both were very helpful. I have always supported this idea in concept. Everything looks good to me apart from one aspect. This will be way too obtrusive and completely spoil the vista. I understand it needs to be robust and we should design for future conditions. I also think we should create flexible designs that can be adaptively respond to known uncertainties. We know sea levels and storm intensities will rise, but we do not know how much by when. We need to take that into account, but we should still start with the fundamental design principle that we want this to near perfectly meet our specific needs on every day of use for the next 100 years. The ideal salt marsh board-walk is always just above whichever is higher, the tide or the marsh grass. It brings the visitors as close to what is interesting as possible, and minimally interferes with the vista. This also means no fencing, just a (3" high?) rounded wooden kerb on the edge. That is our primary goal. Now we have to take into account climate change. We can do that using flexible "erector set" thinking. Create an adaptable design that allows for adjustment to the whole sequence of rising king tide heights envisaged over the next 100 years, in stages, as and when needed. Perhaps first design for 1 or 2 feet above king tide marsh for the next 15 years, but incorporate the ability to easily add height when needed, perhaps 2 feet at a time. All that would need is bolt on leg extensions. A clever slotted design could allow that to be easily accomplished (10-12 ft) section-by-section working from the installed board-walk, hinging each section to the higher level one-by-one. When we build for unusual storms, we need sufficient strength. We do not need this to be high enough to never be inundated, we just need it to be high enough to not interfere with natural flows. Tourists and museum groups do not need to go to Wings Island under stormy conditions, nor should they be allowed to for public safety reasons. While the height flexibility design element will introduce some additional cost, that will be initially more than outweighed by the enormous savings in material and shipping cost for the starting structure, which will be perhaps 7-10 ft lower. The every 15-20 year maintenance cost of raising a couple of feet will likely be compensated by the savings of not needing to install and maintain fences on both sides. If the donors are willing, a bank-managed trust fund could also be set up for the funds saved in initial construction, to provide for the future "board-lifts". If deer crossing is an issue, build one bridge somewhere along the way. As the deer are standing on the peat and the deck base is above the marsh, it may only need to rise around 3 ft. The deer always find the best way through, and the rise and fall of one short bridge will be much less obtrusive than a high "bridge" all the way across the marsh. It is always important to consider the balance between access and conservation. What has been generally proposed so far errs heavily towards engineering wonderful access that will be fixed for decades, but not be anything close to ideal on even one day in those decades. It would also be much more expensive than what would do the job much better now. For the next thirty years, at least, it would seriously harm the wild natural look and open marsh vista. Unless we make it much less obtrusive, we will forever lose the precious wild, undisturbed, natural look-and-feel of our access to, and trail and beach on, Wings Island. It will also feel much more natural and relaxing to almost every user to be closer to the marsh level. Many people will feel uncomfortable, embarrassed and ashamed to be walking fenced in high above the marsh, with a man-made structure dominating their experience. I could not support a board-walk that needs both sides fenced and is more than a foot or two above the marsh and the current king tide levels. It is not necessary, and would seriously diminish everyone's experience of this wonderful natural resource. Thank you all again very much for managing this project so openly and well! I look forward to the next review. Cheers, John Anne Pouch <awpouch@gmail.com> I like the idea of having a boardwalk but not across the marsh from Drummer Boy to Wing Island. I agree with many that it will forever change the pristine character of that area building such a substantial structure and will impact the ecosystem undoubtedly. My thoughts would be to make the existing slim 2 boarded walkway over the marsh to Wing Island something more substantial to support the access of a wheelchair to some part of the journey to Wing Island - to enable wheelbound people to have closer access to this boardwalk without paving over anything. Or to provide a sturdier solution to the narrow boards that exist now. I definitely don't think the proposed plan is the way to go - I am concerned about the private citizen who is paying for it to - sounds fishy. Anne Pouch Flying Mist Ln Mary Marshall <mkmarshall4@gmail.com> I am very opposed to the plan for a new boardwalk to Wing Island. Bringing more people to a fragile environment is bound to have detrimental effects on the environment. The boardwalk being planned would actually spoil the beautiful vista. People are drawn to Brewster because it is less developed than other communities around. A viewing platform at Drummer Boy would be a much more environmentally friendly option. Putting some funds into the best use of the Sea Camp property would benefit a greater number of townspeople with less harm to the environment. Please abandon this boardwalk plan. Mary Marshall mkmarshall4@gmail.com Joan Bernstein <joanbernstein@comcast.net> I strongly support the boardwalk project, especially the handicap access features. Sue Finnegan <suefinnegan@comcast.net> I am writing to express my opposition to the proposed boardwalk to Wing Island for the following reasons: 1) As the manager of the Wing Island Bird Banding Station, I have been studying bird populations on the island for 22 years. Wing Island is an important stop-over site for large numbers of birds during migration. Birds will stop and feed for a week or so to build up fat to continue their migration journey in spring and fall. I've also been studying the birds that use Wing Island as a breeding site during the spring and summer and again large numbers of birds use Wing Island to raise their young. I have documented over 151 different bird species that utilize this wild area. I have deep concern that building this massive boardwalk will encourage more and more people to use the area. There are no facilities on the island so there will be more trash, more noise, more dogs (yes, some people bring their dogs as rules don't apply to them), and human waste. This will be detrimental to the birds that need the food and resources Wing Island offers them. It will probably decrease the numbers of birds using this island and jeopardizing many species. 2) The beautiful view that people love will be destroyed. 3) I've been told that the boardwalk is needed so everyone can see the view of this saltmarsh. Is being sure that everyone has a view more important than the environmental impact this plan will have on this sensitive area? Why not build a nice viewing platform accessible to everyone from Drummer Boy museum. Make a low impact boardwalk over the marsh from the museum to Wing Island similar to the one at Wellfleet Fleet Bay Audubon Sanctuary. If it floods during astronomical high tide, so what? Maybe people will just have to wait for a lower tide or wear rubber boots! Even if you build this massive structure are people who are unable to walk well or are in wheelchairs going to be able to use the beach? NO! Unless your plan is to pave the walkway down to the beach which at present is fairly hazardous for able-bodied people. The water also floods the salt marsh from Wing Island to the beach, are your plans to build another boardwalk from there? Why not instead utilize First Light Beach that we recently bought for a huge amount of money? 4) The director of the museum wants the boardwalk because of the parking problem they have with people wanting to use the beach. It's going to bring more people! Do you really think people will chose to park at Drummer Boy, go for a good hike to a boardwalk from there when it is much easier to go from the museum? I think not. 5) I believe this project will have a huge negative impact on the health of an already compromised salt marsh. I hope you will reconsider this project and I appreciate being able to comment on it. Please listen to our concerns. Sincerely, Susan Finnegan 36 Blueberry Pond Dr. Michael Pavlov <mikepavlov3@gmail.com> I would like to comment on the proposed wing island boardwalk. I am strongly against the proposal. The beauty of the marsh leading out to Wings Island is spectacular. The boardwalk would take away from that special scenic view. I also think there is a double standard here. I have a pond front home and I'm amazed how strict the 100 foot wetland laws are. If I owned the marsh out to Wings Island and wanted to build a boardwalk, there is no way the town would permit me to do it. But since the town owns it, it seems to be permissible. If this goes through, why should I or anyone else bother to obey conservation laws if the town has a different standard. Thank you for your time, Mike Pavlov Leslie Kramer <lkramer50@comcast.net> To Whom it may Concern: I am writing this letter about the drawbacks of this project from my perspective as a 25 year Brewster resident and a field guide for the past 15 years at the Museum of Natural History. I’m very concerned and opposed to the added dogleg from Drummer Boy Park through the marsh to connect with the existing walkway. I believe that this whole project should be scaled back and improvements to the existing walkway should be as unobtrusive as possible. What I have learned as a field guide is the importance of the Marsh as the nursery of the sea ; The nurturance of juveniles of 70% of the fish that we eat, the protection of homes along the coast, and filtering of our fresh water. I an also concerned with the fragility of this environment , already under stress from ocean rise and climate change.The addition of an additional section of walkway from Drummer boy Park will be an eyesore and block the view of the marsh as well as adding additional stress to all the creatures and their environment that we are supposed to be protecting. In addition, the financial burden to the town, on top of the recent sea camp purchase, is unwise and undesirable. We should be putting our financial resources into the Sea Camps, which will have a greater benefit to all the citizens of Brewster. For all these reasons and others, I am opposed to the boardwalk proposal as currently described. Sincerely, Leslie Kramer Jayanne <jayannesci@yahoo.com> I didn’t realize the design work for this was part of the Drummer boy park project. When presented at Town meeting I don’t recall hearing any mention of a 10 foot wide boardwalk over the marsh connecting it to Wing island. Please reconsider the need to have this huge obstruction in this environmental sensitive area. Gail Agneta <podbrewofag@gmail.com> This seems to be TOURISM being of more value to the town of Brewster rather than a preservation of our environment. The area is so critical to the wild life of land, sea and sky! Why would we violate this natural space? For years many of us have found our way to Wing Island via museum. The limited traffic has allowed a habitat of educational value. Now the masses can easily come aboard disturbing the balance . Allowing this structure violates the values of the Museum, that part of Brewster that cherished and protected our natural world! Marty Burke <marty.burke@brewsterponds.org> Good evening, I am writing to say that I am AGAINST the proposed Wing Island boardwalk. My concerns and questions: - Has there been an ADA evaluation since it seems the only logical reason for this project to be considered? I want to see this. - Has there been a study regarding the need in the disabled community for this project? I want to see this. - If it is ADA compliance that is the driver here, I want to see the study on why this is the best practical option. - Why are there no other ADA sites for the disabled? How about the new $25M First Light Beach? - Why not use the current ADA sidewalk heading west from Drummer Boy to the Museum and rebuild the current existing boardwalk at the museum? This is also the shortest and most direct route from the mainland to the island. - Rebuilding the current planked boardwalk at the museum is by far the most cost efficient plan. - Why not also consider the use of the new property next to Drummer boy, build an ADA route to the hill overlooking the marsh, and build a lovely viewing deck there without entering the marsh. - ADA Compliance is not practicable due to terrain. The phrase “not practicable” means not reasonably doable. A boardwalk here is not practicable given climate criss. Ask the Town of Sandwich how the town boardwallk there stands up to climate crisis and the regular diet of notheast winter storms. - Has a environmental study around the impact been done? I want to see the study. - Putting a boardwark here would fundamentally alter the envirnment.- - A boardwalk would fundamentally alter the environment of the marsh. This in som many ways is a bad idea and I would hope to hear answers to my questions. Marty Burke ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ The comments below this section were submitted in PDF format as attachments ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ RE: Wing Island Boardwalk To whom it may concern: We would like to go on record in our strong opposition to the construction of the Wing Island Boardwalk. It is a completely unnecessary project that will not only represent a significant cost to Brewster taxpayers but will have a major detrimental impact on one of the most beautiful and pristine places in Brewster. Consider the following: • This is a town photo of the current marsh. In the summer months it is a green expanse that turns beautiful shades of brown in the fall. Now imagine a boardwalk – 10 feet wide and rising over 10 feet high (including the railings) bisecting that image. This unimpeded view would be lost forever. • The current plan calls for a boardwalk 10 feet wide held above the projected future sea level at high tide with 230 helical coil supports spaced 10-12 feet apart. These supports will be drilled down approximately 20 feet below the current marsh level. In order to install these helical coil supports, initially test borings would have to be completed. • Installation of these supports will require major construction equipment to operate over the marsh doing significant damage to this extremely fragile ecosystem. This heavy equipment will require that construction mats be laid down over the marsh all along the proposed route. The picture below shows what this may look like. This is just the vehicle laying out the mats – to be followed by drilling equipment and construction equipment. • The construction will be subject to tides. The construction mats therefore must be held down during periods of high tide. It is inconceivable that there will be no permanent damage to the salt marsh during this construction. The quote by the president of the design firm is just not believable. “ Supporting the raised boardwalk would be an estimated 230 helical piles spaced 10 to 12 feet apart and drilled 20 feet down into the salt marsh “with almost no impact to the bog itself,” Claytor said.” • A salt water marsh is a very fragile ecosystem supporting a myriad of aquatic life as well as small mammals and birds. A multiyear major construction project with heavy mats covering significant portions of the marsh– for a project that will see marginal use compared to our beaches for example - will certainly do considerable damage to the marsh. • The design calls for a 10 ft wide boardwalk per National Seashore standards. This width is not necessary unless it will be used for vehicular traffic as it does for the National Seashore. What is the justification for this overdesign? • And all of this does not consider the costs. While there have been donations of just over $1 million, this pales against what will be a final bill for this project. Although the cost estimates are not in, this will be a multi-year project with the costs probably in the many millions of dollars. Do we really need that additional expense after just authorizing the acquisition of the Sea Camp properties for over $31 million? There is also the Nauset High School renovation expense. For some significant millions of dollars. And what about the other projects being discussed including a new or updated Senior Center and upgrades to the Ladies Library? In these times of financial hardship for many and the rising interest rates on any debt, this is a project that just should not be done for many reasons. Others have spoken out about the detrimental effects that this project will bring including increased traffic in this wild area, an impaired scenic view, trash, waste disposal, access for parties, etc. All of this has costs for maintaining such a walkway and security concerns. We agree with these comments and they bear repeating. In summary, this is not a project that should even be considered for preliminary design work let alone construction. We would be surprised and disappointed if the Brewster Conservation Trust does not come out against this project. It is the antithesis of their motto “ Take only memories – leave only footprints “. Let the wild and pristine spaces remain untouched. Rob & Meryl Gartside 35 Daisy Lane Brewster 1 Donna Kalinick From:Conor Kenny Sent:Monday, September 26, 2022 4:53 PM To:Donna Kalinick Subject:FW: Brewster-BCT Boardwalk Project - Comments Begin forwarded message: From: Chris Powicki <chrisp@weeinfo.com> Subject: Brewster-BCT Boardwalk Project - Comments Date: August 26, 2022 at 3:21:19 PM EDT To: boardwalk@brewster-ma.gov Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the latest ill-conceived project to emerge from Town Hall and draw significant grassroots opposition due to “blinders-on” planning processes exacerbated by a lack of early and effective public engagement. Many aspects of this project are regrettable and potentially precedent-setting: Town officials, aided and abetted by Brewster Conservation Trust, propose erection of a monumental structure, over and through protected and sensitive marshlands. Town officials granted a BCT donor naming rights for “community infrastructure” in exchange for $1 million—and agreed to conceal the donor’s identity—without public input. The boardwalk's industrial scale—10 feet wide, with even larger viewing platforms, well above the marsh surface, buttressed by pilings and cross- bracing—will unnecessarily mar signature views. The structure itself, though deployed in sensitive habitat, is intended to become a destination, a misguided goal that undermines the fundamental tenets of resource conservation. If built as proposed, the existing uses and values of two gems—Drummer Boy Park and Wing Island—will be degraded, as will the ecosystem that connects them. In advancing this project, Town officials are repeating mistakes made—and ignoring lessons learned—across the past decade or so through experiences with CVEC's wind project, the culvert replacement project at Paine’s Creek landing, the Commerce Park solar project, the Breakwater Beach parking lot relocation project, the BCT-Brewster Paine’s Creek parking lot development project, and the Millstone Road redevelopment project. The proposed Brewster-BCT boardwalk and these projects share common underlying failings, to varying extents: Grandiose ideas make their way into Town plans and/or surveys without being vetted against a full set of community-based criteria, and later the plans and/or results are used as cudgels. Initial commitments of Town funds, though indirect or very modest, allow significant resources to be invested in design development before adequate public engagement. 2 Staff, committee members, and invited contributors work with eager-to-please consultants - in a vacuum - to develop ambitious, fully conceived project proposals that are eventually sprung on an unsuspecting public. Concepts broadly supported, such a renewable energy production, pedestrian and bike safety upgrades, or coastal access improvements, are used to justify projects that threaten interests not adequately represented during early planning processes. Some of the projects listed above were withdrawn or rejected, but a couple others proceeded on a full-steam basis, resulting in significant adverse impacts. Only the last on the list appears headed toward positive outcomes—and only because Town officials took a time out after hearing community concerns and then a step back for additional community engagement before returning to the drawing board with revised and better- informed design objectives. Here are my specific recommendations for immediate next steps on the Brewster-BCT boardwalk project, as proposed: Halt all staff and consultant labor, Town expenditures, grant/funding applications, and political outreach activities that specifically relate to creating an additional physical connection, beyond the existing sidewalk, between Drummer Boy Park, the neighboring property, and Town access to Wing Island. Direct the consultant to develop low-impact design concepts for (1) replacing the existing plank walkway to Wing Island and repairing the ecological damage it has caused while avoiding and minimizing further disturbance; and (2) creating a fully accessible viewing platform/boardwalk that remains within the footprint of Drummer Boy Park, connects to existing paved surfaces and disturbed areas, and avoids and minimizes additional disturbance during construction and obtrusiveness once built. Announce a plan for engaging the community in considering the existing values and uses of Drummer Boy and Wing Island relative to a full set of design concepts for maintaining and enhancing coastal access. Thank you for carefully considering the massive downsides associated with this project, lessons learned from previous projects that have drawn significant community opposition, and the specific recommendations above. Sincerely, Chris Powicki 2042 Main Street Brewster, MA 02631 774.487.4614 1 Erika Mawn From:Chris Miller Sent:Tuesday, August 30, 2022 4:04 PM To:Conor Kenny; Peter Lombardi Subject:FW: Let the Town Know What You Think - Wing Island Boardwalk From: Brewster Conservation Trust <bct@brewsterconservationtrust.org> Sent: Tuesday, August 30, 2022 3:58 PM To: Chris Miller <cmiller@brewster-ma.gov> Subject: Let the Town Know What You Think - Wing Island Boardwalk Let the Town Know What You Think - Wing Island Boardwalk Let the Town Know What You Think About the Wing Island Boardwalk Project 2 We have been hearing a lot from our members and friends about the proposed boardwalk project to connect Drummer Boy Park, Wing Island and the Cape Cod Museum of Natural History. The opinions being expressed are another example of the passionate respect of Brewster residents for our shared legacy of natural beauty and resources. If you want to know more about where the boardwalk proposal stands at this early stage, the Town has an information page here. The Town is actively soliciting the views of Brewster residents on the proposal, and you can let them know what you think, here. Deadline to submit comments is Friday, September 2, 2022. We are directing you to the Town’s website for your information and input because the boardwalk is a Town project. The Brewster Conservation Trust has no direct involvement in the planning and like many of you, first saw the concept plan during the recent public forum. As an organization, BCT has not yet taken a position on the project in acknowledgment of the fact that it is in the very earliest stages of concept planning. The initial proposal, prepared with funding approved by Town Meeting, is explicitly intended as a starting point for public consideration and debate. A private family, who are also major supporters of BCT, independently expressed interest in the project and, as an accommodation to them and the Town, we agreed 3 to be the conduit for their support — if the project does go forward and is approved by the voters. As a condition to taking that purely passive role, we have required that the Town give us an acceptable conservation restriction on Wing Island to preserve its natural state forever. The property is currently unprotected. In the meantime, BCT will be following closely the developing debate and evolution of the planning for the project, and individual trustees may make their personal views known as private citizens. But we don’t expect to take any formal position on the project until the planning is more fully developed. Brewster Conservation Trust | 508-694-6720 | Email | Website DONATE TO SUPPORT OUR MISSION As always, 100% of your donations go towards the protection of land in Brewster! Brewster Conservation Trust | 36 Red Top Rd., Brewster, MA 02631 Unsubscribe cmiller@brewster-ma.gov Update Profile | Constant Contact Data Notice Sent by bct@brewsterconservationtrust.org powered by Try email marketing for free today! 1 Erika Mawn From:Brewster Community Network <info@brewstercommunitynetwork.org> Sent:Friday, September 23, 2022 10:44 AM To:Peter Lombardi Subject:BCN Alert: 9/26 Select Board Discussion of Proposed Wing Island Boardwalk View this email in your browser BCN Alerts are notices of local non-BCN programs that may be of interest to BCN members and the broader community - please share! 9/26 Select Board “Working Session” on Proposed Wing Island Boardwalk Project On Monday, September 26, Brewster's Select Board will consider public feedback received on the proposed conceptual design of the Wing Island Boardwalk. The “working session" will be conducted in conjunction with Horsely Witten Group, the Town’s consultant. Town officials plan to present a revised design at a public forum in October and begin project permitting in November. The meeting will be televised on Channel 18 and conducted virtually via Zoom beginning at 6 pm: https://us02web.zoom.us/j/89092910526?pwd=WHM2V3hrVklhSTloWWhVU09kanUzQT09 - Passcode: 509224. Check the Town Calendar for additional information - the meeting packet is expected to include all public comments received. The conceptual design was developed using $50,000 provided to the Town through an ongoing MassTrails 2 grant and $30,000 by a private donor via Brewster Conservation Trust (BCT).To support boardwalk construction, the donor has pledged an additional $1 million in exchange for naming rights and a BCT conservation restriction over Wing Island. The elevated boardwalk would replace the narrow, slippery plank walkway, directly atop the marsh, that currently provides tidally restricted public access to Wing Island via the Route 6A sidewalk and for visitors to the Cape Cod Museum of Natural History. Under the conceptual design, the boardwalk also would connect to Drummer Boy Park, spanning more than 1000 feet in total and supported by more than 200 pilings. It would be 7 to 10 feet above the marsh’s surface with 5-foot-high protective railings and 6 to 10 feet wide with broader viewing stations. All design elements would be deployed on and above conservation land and would be fully compliant with the American Disabilities Act (ADA). Signage displaying the donor’s chosen name for the boardwalk would adorn its ends. Existing trails on Wing Island would remain unimproved. At a "Friends of Wing Island” meeting on September 15, more than 50 Brewster citizens signed a petition, since submitted to the Select Board, that calls for permitting of the proposed boardwalk to be delayed. The petition also requested an analysis of alternative designs for providing ADA-compliant access to the marsh from Drummer Boy Park and for improving upon the existing plank walkway to Wing Island. Resources Town of Brewster "Wing Island Boardwalk" Project Information Webpage: https://www.brewster- ma.gov/wing-island-boardwalk-project “Save Wing Island / Stop the Boardwalk” Website: https://savewingisland.com/ Town of Brewster-Brewster Conservation Trust Gift Agreement: pp. 203-206 at https://portal.laserfiche.com/Portal/DocView.aspx?id=158150&repo=r-153f9d98 MassTrails State Grant Award Notice and Application: pp. 207-227 at https://portal.laserfiche.com/Portal/DocView.aspx?id=158150&repo=r-153f9d98 Brewster Community Network (BCN) brings together Brewster residents dedicated to sharing our resources, information, and contacts so that, in collaboration with town officials and the greater community, we are better able to maintain the character of our town and quality of our lives. The BCN Steering Committee seeks new members to help plan, promote, and conduct future public forums, hopefully soon in person. Energy and ideas of all kinds are welcome. Please reach out at steeringcommittee@brewstercommunitynetwork.org. For more information, 3 visit www.brewstercommunitynetwork.org. 2022 Steering Committee: Meridith Baier, Peter Hermann, John Lamb, Mary O'Neill, Chris Powicki Copyright © 2022 Brewster Community Network, All rights reserved. You are receiving this email because you signed up at a meeting or at our website. Our mailing address is: Brewster Community Network 67 Linnell Landing Rd Brewster, MA 02631-1507 Add us to your address book Want to change how you receive these emails? You can update your preferences or unsubscribe from this list. Memo To: Brewster Select Board From: Peter Lombardi, Town Administrator Date: June 10, 2022 RE: Inactive Town Boards & Committees Follow-up Following up on the June 10, 2022 memo to the Board regarding inactive committees and the Board’s preliminary feedback, we recommend that the Board vote to formally disband the Cable Television Advisory Committee and Hazardous Waste Committee. In addition, based on the Board’s recent decision not to move forward with the full library renovation project at this time, we recommend that the Library Building Committee be disbanded as well. Anticipating final state approval of the Town’s charter in the next few months, we expect to bring forward articles to disband the Building Needs & Assessment and Capital Planning Committees to Town Meeting in Spring 2023. A member of the Agricultural Commission plans to attend a Select Board meeting in December to provide an update on their status and discuss appropriate next steps. We should also revisit our All Citizens Access Committee after the planned presentation to the Board on Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion on October 3. Town of Brewster 2198 Main Street Brewster, MA 02731 (508) 896-3701 www.brewster-ma.gov Office of: Town Administration Select Board Memo To: Brewster Select Board From: Peter Lombardi, Town Administrator; Donna Kalinick, Assistant Town Administrator; Erika Mawn, Executive Assistant Date: June 10, 2022 RE: Inactive Town Boards & Committees The Town of Brewster has over 40 boards and committees, made up of residents and employees working together, helping to govern and improve life throughout the Town. Each board and committee are made up of anywhere between two and nine members, and all members are either elected or appointed to their position. The terms for these positions are between one to three years, and members need to be re-appointed at the end of their term to continue to serve consistent with Select Board policies. In actively managing committee meetings since the pandemic started and as we worked through this year’s annual re-appointment cycle, our office has noticed that a number of committees that are technically still in place have not met for some time. We thought it would be beneficial for the Select Board to review this list and discuss potential next steps. The first four committees are memorialized in the Town bylaws and would accordingly require Town Meeting action to change or disband: Agriculture Commission (Town Bylaw §12-38) Formed in 2005 Consists of seven members, appointed by the Select Board for three-year terms Last posted meeting was April 2017 Currently consists of 4 members, 2 of which have not been sworn in and 2 that are up for re-appointment Alewife Committee (Town Bylaw §12-7) Formed in 1803 Consists of three members, appointed by the Select Board No meetings/minutes posted on website Currently consists of 3 members, 2 that are up for re-appointment Town of Brewster 2198 Main Street Brewster, MA 02731 (508) 896-3701 www.brewster-ma.gov Office of: Town Administration Select Board Building Needs & Assessment (Town Bylaw §12-37) Formed in 1985 Consists of five members (up to a maximum of seven), appointed by the Select Board for three-year terms Last posted meeting was January 2020 (meeting with the Select Board to discuss committee’s future) Currently no active members Capital Planning Committee (Town Bylaw §12-24) Consists of five members, three citizens appointed by the Select Board, the Town Treasurer and the Executive Secretary (now Town Administrator), with Town Accountant serving as an alternate Committee actively met through February 2022 Three Citizen member positions now available Committee will be disbanded after Town charter is adopted by the state legislature and duties/responsibilities will be borne by Town staff and/or a committee appointed by the then Town Manager We recommend the Select Board place articles on the Fall 2023 Special Town Meeting warrant to disband the Building Needs & Assessment and Capital Planning Committees. The Alewife Committee should be contacted to determine what we can do to better support their collective needs as individual committee members remain actively involved with the Natural Resources Department. The Agriculture Commission should be contacted as well to determine appropriate next steps since they currently do not have a quorum and haven’t held a meeting in more than five years. The remaining committees are ad hoc and could be changed or disbanded by the Select Board: All Citizens Access (Ad Hoc) - formerly Committee for the Handicapped Formed in 1985 Consists of five members, appointed by the Select Board for three-year terms Last posted meeting was in September 2019 Currently only one member Cable Television Advisory (Ad Hoc) Consists of seven members, appointed by the Select Board for three-year terms Last posted meeting was February 2019 Currently two members, one is up for re-appointment Responsibilities, including negotiation of cable license agreement(s), have been assumed by Town Administration Hazardous Waste Committee (Ad Hoc) First appeared in the Annual Town Report in 1982 Consists of four members, which are all Department Heads (Water, DPW, Fire, and Health) All are up for re-appointment These Department Heads work together on a regular basis and meet as a Public Safety team on a monthly basis Library Building Committee (Ad Hoc) Consists of five members, appointed by the Select Board for three-year terms Currently five members, one is up for re-appointment No formal charge We recommend that the Select Board vote to disband the Hazardous Waste and Cable Advisory Committees. The All Citizens Access Committee charge should be revisited and perhaps updated, and then Town officials should actively recruit to fill the remaining seats. With state grant funding for the proposed Library renovation project anticipated to be available by FY25, Town and Library officials should develop a charge for the Library Building Committee for the Select Board’s consideration so that their responsibilities are clear. Town of Brewster 2198 Main Street Brewster, MA 02631-1898 Phone: (508) 896-3701 Fax: (508) 896-8089 MEMORANDUM TO: Select Board FROM: Peter Lombardi, Town Administrator RE: Water Resources Task Force DATE: July 8, 2022 Protecting our water quality and resources consistently ranks as one of the top priorities of our residents. Over the past several years, Town officials have been working with our long-time water quality consultant, Horsley Witten, to continue to advance our water quality initiatives across town. We have provided the Select Board a number of updates on key water quality issues over the past year, including a comprehensive update last January. Water resource projects and policies are incredibly complex and they have significant potential impacts on the Town and our residents as we face numerous major policy decision points in the next few years. Continuing to make progress in improving water quality has been identified as a goal in the Select Board’s FY23-24 Strategic Plan as follows: “Convene a new Water Resources Task Force and develop updated plan and timeline for advancing integrated water quality initiatives, to include addressing DEP’s proposed changes to Title V regulations and continuing collaboration with external stakeholders.” It has also been listed as a specific goal for the Town Administrator in FY23. To assist in this critical work, I plan to convene a technical working group comprised of the following members: Natural Resources Director Health Director Town Planner Select Board Liaison to Cape Cod & Islands Water Protection Fund Board Board of Health Chair or their designee Natural Resources Chair or their designee Brewster Ponds Coalition President or their designee While each of these individuals and groups have contributed in varying capacities on Brewster’s water resource work over the years, the creation of this task force formalizes our collective efforts and will ensure that key stakeholders are all involved in these discussions and working together in a coordinated manner going forward. Horsley Witten is prepared to provide technical assistance to this group. The task force will be convened next month and will meet on a monthly basis. We will provide regular updates to the Select Board and other relevant committees. Office of: Select Board Town Administrator Integrated Water Resource Management Plan 2022 Update Town of Brewster Brewster Town Hall 2198 Main Street Brewster, Massachusetts 02631 Table of Contents Introduction .................................................................................................................................... 2 Overview of Water Quality in Brewster .......................................................................................... 3 Brewster’s Public Drinking Water Supply ................................................................................... 4 Pleasant Bay Watershed ............................................................................................................. 5 Herring River and Bass River Watersheds .................................................................................. 5 Other Coastal Estuaries ............................................................................................................... 5 Fresh Water Ponds ...................................................................................................................... 6 IWRMP Summary ............................................................................................................................ 6 Implementation of the IWRMP ....................................................................................................... 7 Pleasant Bay Watershed ............................................................................................................. 8 Fresh Water Ponds .................................................................................................................... 13 Stormwater Management ........................................................................................................ 15 Herring River Watershed .......................................................................................................... 16 Summary of Potential Costs & Funding Sources .......................................................................... 16 Conclusions – Summary of Next Steps ......................................................................................... 17 REFERENCES .................................................................................................................................. 18 Figure 1. Brewster's Water Resources Figure 2. Brewster Conservation Lands and Zone II Areas Figure 3. Integrated Connections Between Water Resources and Pollutants Figure 4. Water Quality in Brewster's Ponds APPENDIX A - 208 Compliance Reports 2021 2 BREWSTER’S INTEGRATED WATER RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN - 2022 UPDATE Introduction Since the 1980’s, Brewster has actively focused on protecting and restoring the Town’s water resources. This includes significant investments to protect undeveloped land to prevent the pollution of groundwater and surface waters associated with residential and commercial development. In 2009, the Town of Brewster began a detailed study (known as the Integrated Water Resource Management Plan or IWRMP) to identify the issues associated with the Town’s water systems and propose strategies to protect and restore water quality. This planning process led to a series of recommendations related to groundwater, freshwater ponds, stormwater management and coastal estuaries, with a focus on Pleasant Bay. In the last 10 years, significant work has been done to advance these recommendations. The purpose of this updated report is to summarize the goals of the Town’s planning process, describe the actions that have been taken to date and present the current plans for continued wa ter management in Brewster, including the costs needed to implement these plans. As will be described throughout this report, the Town’s investments in protecting open space have preserved drinking water quality throughout Brewster and have significantly reduced the future investments needed to restore the quality of freshwater ponds as well as Pleasant Bay and other coastal estuaries. Integrated Water Resource Management Groundwater and surface waters, throughout Brewster, are interconnected. Rainfall is the source of Brewster’s groundwater and surface waters. Rainwater lands on the ground surface and either infiltrates through the soil into groundwater or flows over the ground surface to a freshwater pond, Cape Cod Bay or one of the coastal estuaries in or near Brewster. These interrelationships led to the decision to develop the IWRMP to evaluate the quality of the groundwater that provides drinking water to Brewster’s residents, as well as the quality of the Town’s many freshwater ponds and coastal estuaries . This planning process recognized that individual plans or actions are needed for specific watersheds in town; those areas that contribute groundwater or surface water to freshwater ponds, or coastal estuaries (Figure 1). The IWRMP process also recognizes ongoing planning is needed for those areas that contribute groundwater to the Town’s public drinking water wells. These areas are known in Massachusetts as Zone II’s, or wellhead protection areas, and are shown in Figure 2. In £¤6 UV137UV124 UV6A DENNIS HARWIC H YARMOUTH ORLEANS CHATHAM Cape Co d Bay Stony BrookQuivett Creek Ple asa nt Bay Bass River Herring River Namskaket Swan Pond Little Namskaket Source: Esri, Maxar, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AeroGRID,IGN, and the GIS User Community / 0 10.5Miles Date: 1/18/2022 Path: H:\Projects\2011\11109 Brewster Int.Wtr.Res.Mgt Plan\GIS\Maps\Report\Figure B-2.mxd Figure 1. Brewster's WaterResources C apeC odB ayP l e a s a n t B a y Cape Cod Bay Legend Ponds Streams Subwatersheds Wetlands Town of Brewster Watersheds !A !A !A !A !A !A UV6A £¤6 UV137 UV124 WELL # 6 WELL #5 WELL # 4 WELL # 1 WELL # 2 WELL # 3 DENNIS HARWICH ORLEAN S CHATHAMYARMOUTH / 0 10.5Miles Date: 1/26/2022 Path: H:\Projects\2011\11109 Brewster Int.Wtr.Res.Mgt Plan\GIS\Maps\Report\Figure 2.mxd Figure 2. BrewsterConservation Lan ds andZone II Are as C apeC odB ayPleasantBayCape Cod Bay !A Publi c Wells Legend Conservation Lands Ponds Brewter Zone II Town of Brewster Other Zone II 3 addition, the areas contributing groundwater and surface water to freshwater ponds must also be assessed and the sources of pollution to these ponds managed. The interrelationships between groundwater, surface water and different sources of pollutants can be seen in Figure 3. The graphic shows how day-to-day activities of town residents impact the quality of drinking water and the quality of freshwater ponds and coastal estuaries. What is flushed down a toilet into a septic system can impact water quality in downgradient wells, ponds or coastal estuaries. Pollutants on town roadways (e.g., automobiles, fertilizers, and pet wastes) are collected in stormwater runoff that flows into waterways or soaks into the ground and impacts groundwater quality. Figure 3 – Integrated Connections Between Water Resources and Pollutants Overview of Water Quality in Brewster Brewster is fortunate to have a public water system that provides high quality drinking water. However, there are ongoing issues with the water quality in many of the freshwater ponds in town, in Pleasant Bay and in Herring River in the adjacent town of Harwich. While Brewster only has frontage on a small portion of Pleasant Bay, and none on the Herring River , a portion of the watersheds that contribute pollutants to them are located in Brewster and the Town has a regulatory obligation to manage these watersheds. An overview of the regulatory requirements for managing the Town’s water resources, and the protection and restoration strategies the Town is currently evaluating, are summarized below. The status of the Town’s actions to restore these waters is then discussed in the following report sections. 4 Brewster’s Public Drinking Water Supply Most Brewster residents get their drinking water from the Town’s public water supply system. Brewster’s public water supply provides high quality drinking water pumped from six wells withdrawing groundwater from the area surrounding each well. The Zone II protection areas to these wells are shown on Figure 2. The protection of undeveloped open space around the Town’s wells serves to minimize the potential for contaminants to impact drinking water quality. In 2012, 40% of the Town’s Zone II areas were protected open space (See IWRMP Phase II Report). The extent of protected open space has grown since then, with further acquisitions by the Town and the Brewster Conservation Trust . Public supply wells using groundwater are typically threatened by nitrogen fr om septic systems, lawn fertilizers, road runoff, hazardous material releases from fuel storage tanks, and accidental spills from roadway accidents. The open space protection in Brewster has significantly reduced the number of onsite septic systems potentially affecting drinking water quality. The Town’s Water Quality Review Bylaw also prohibits hazardous materials use, or storage at volumes above those typically used in a household, in the Zone II areas. The Town’s wells are tested regularly, and the tests confirm there are no contaminants exceeding federal and state drinking water standards. This data is reported annually in the Consumer Confidence Report, which the Water Department is required to produce. As can be seen in the 2020 report (Town of Brewster Water Department, June 2021), the nitrogen concentration in the Town’s drinking water averaged less than 1 part per million (mg/L). The drinking water standard for nitrogen is 10 mg/L. Nitrogen is an indicator of contamination from septic systems, fertilizers and runoff. The low value is reflective of the extent of protected open space in the Zone II areas around the town wells. Emerging contaminants are an ongoing concern for every drinking water system. One of the emerging contaminants of concern for many drinking water systems is per-and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS). PFAS compounds are found in firefighting foams, a variety of personal care products, food wrappings, Teflon coated cookware, and clothing. The recently updated state drinking water standard for six of these PFAS compounds is now 20 parts per trillion. Note, this drinking water standard is six orders of magnitude lower than the standard for nitrogen. Small releases of these compounds to soil and groundwater can create issues for public water systems, so ongoing testing and evaluation is needed. Tests conducted in 2021 showed no PFAS compounds have been detected in the Town’s public water supplies. There are properties in Brewster that use private wells for drinking water, and they are located in various locations across the Town. These wells face the same water quality issues as the Town wells and often also benefit from nearby protected open space. One issue with private wells is their placement relative to an onsite septic system on the same property or an abutting property. Even if a septic system is outside the required 100-foot setback from a private well, if groundwater is flowing from the septic system towards the well it can bring nitrogen and other contaminants to the well. For this reason, it is important for residents to test the water quality in their private wells on a regular basis. 5 Pleasant Bay Watershed The majority of the IWRMP implementation work over the last four years has focused on Brewster’s portion of the Pleasant Bay watershed. Nitrogen inputs from the land uses within the watershed that contributes groundwater to the bay is the major water quality concern. Excess concentrations accelerate the growth of algae and invasive plants lead ing to the loss of fish and shellfish habitat. A main concern is the loss of eelgrass that provides habitat for fish to lay eggs and threatens protection of bay scallops. Brewster occupies approximately 25% of the overall watershed shared by Orleans, Harwich, and Chatham, but only contributes to 13% of the total nitrogen load entering the Bay. Brewster still needs to reduce its load by 981 kg/year and has agreed to do this under the Watershed Permit issued by the Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) to the four Pleasant Bay Towns. Herring River and Bass River Watersheds Portions of the watersheds to Herring River in Harwich and Bass River in Dennis and Yarmouth are located in Brewster. Like Pleasant Bay, nitrogen is the pollutant of concern for these estuaries. Brewster’s portion of the Bass River Watershed is quite small , at 160 acres (Univ of MA Dartmouth, April 2011). Given this small area and the fact most of the watershed land within Brewster is protected open space there are no nitrogen management requirements for this watershed. For the Herring River watershed there is likewise no need to reduce the existing nitrogen load within Brewster. However, any additional load resulting from new development in the watershed will need to be manage d to minimize the extent of additional nitrogen entering the Herring River system (Univ of MA Dartmouth, May 2013). Recent open space acquisitions in the watershed have reduced the potential for additional nitrogen impacts and the Town will be updating the quantity of nitrogen that needs to be managed in this watershed in the future. Other Coastal Estuaries Nitrogen management for the Namskaket Creek and Quivett Creek watersheds has also been evaluated in Brewster. These estuaries are located on the north shore of Brewster and drain into Cape Cod Bay. Namskaket Creek is different from the estuaries discussed above as the current and future nitrogen load to this estuary is lower than the threshold established by DEP. So, there is no current need to develop a management plan for this system (Univ of MA Dartmouth, December 2008). The Quivett Creek watershed was evaluated by the Cape Cod Commission (October 2018), and it determined there is no need for nitrogen management at this time. Recent data for Quivett Creek developed by the Association to Preserve Cape Cod (APCC) is currently being reviewed by the Brewster Natural Resource Advisory Commission to determine if water quality has changed. The tidal range in Cape Cod Bay and within these 6 estuaries is much higher than in Pleasant Bay, Herring River or Bass River. Therefore, nitrogen entering these systems is quickly flushed out into Cape Cod Bay and does not have the same impact on the health of the estuaries. Fresh Water Ponds Brewster is home to over 80 freshwater ponds located throughout the Town. Unlike coastal waters, pond water quality is impacted by both phosphorus and nitrogen. Excess inputs of these nutrients fuel the growth of algae which, when they die and decay, reduce the oxygen level in the water. Fish kills can result if algae blooms get too big and result in anoxic conditions in the water. In addition, the mixture of nitrogen and phosphorus can promote the growth of toxic organisms like cyanobacteria which were found in three ponds in the summer of 2021 based on testing conducted by APCC. Warmer temperatures and drought conditions over the last year have extended the growing season in the ponds, exacerbating some of these water quality issues. Many ponds are experiencing water quality impairment as shown in Figure 4. The main sources of these nutrients to ponds are septic systems, lawn fertilizers and road runoff. Since phosphorus does not travel extensive distances in groundwater, the concern with septic system discharges is only related to those within approximately 300 feet of the pond shore, especially on the upgradient side of the pond, as mapped on the Water Resource Atlas described later in this report. IWRMP Summary As mentioned above, Brewster’s IWRMP development began in 2009. Since then, a series of reports specific to Brewster have been prepared to outline specific water quality issues and recommend actions to address them. The majority of them can be viewed on the Town’s Website at www.brewster-ma.gov (click on the Water Planning button on the home page). A summary of the main reports that continue to direct the IWRMP process is provided below. • Integrated Water Resource Management Plan Phase II Report, January 2013. This report provided a review of the regulatory process governing water quality management in Brewster and made specific recommendations for restoring and protecting water quality for drinking water, freshwater ponds and coastal estuaries. • Pleasant Bay Nitrogen Management Alternatives Analysis Report, March 2015. This report focused on strategies to reduce nitrogen loading from Brewster’s portion of the Pleasant Bay Watershed to help achieve the nitrogen reduction goals to restore water quality in the Bay. The alternatives considered included a neighborhood sewer system, changes in fertilization practices at the Captain’s Golf Course, the use of innovative septic treatment systems and other potential solutions. • Pleasant Bay Watershed Permit and Targeted Watershed Management Plan, 2018. Brewster entered into an agreement with the DEP and the three other Pleasant Bay £¤6 UV137 UV124 UV6A Long Pond Cliff Pond Upper Mill Pond Seym our Pond Sheep Pond Walkers Pond Flax P ond Low er Mill Pond Elbow Pond Slough Pond Cahoon Pond Griffiths P ond Bakers Pond Greenland Pond Pine Pond Little Cliff Pond Higgins Pond Cobbs Pond Mill PondSmalls Pond Blueberry Pond Canoe Pond Grassy PondMud Pond Smith Pond Black P ond Sols Pond Owl PondMyricks Pond Eel PondSchoolhouse Pond Round Pond Lees Pond Widger Hole No Bottom Pond HARWIC H ORLEANS DENNIS CHATHAM / 0 10.5Miles Path: H:\Projects\2011\11109 Brewster Int.Wtr.Res.Mgt Plan\GIS\Maps\Report\Figure 1_20171002.mxd Figure 4. Water Qualityin Brewste r's Po nds C apeC odB ayPleasantB ayCape Cod Bay Legend Ponds Town of Brewster Ponds Health Assessment Water Q uality Category 1 - High Quality 2 - Meets Most Uses 3 - Some Im pairment 4 - ImpairedMassDOT Major Roads Wetlands No Data Date: 1/14/2022 7 Watershed towns to restore water quality in Pleasant Bay (DEP, August 2018). The Permit specifies specific requirements to reduce nitrogen loading to the bay. The Pleasant Bay Alliance prepared a companion report, the Targeted Watershed Management Plan, outlining the strategies proposed by each town to meet the nitrogen reduction goals in the Permit. (Pleasant Bay Alliance, March 2018) • Meeting the Nitrogen Reduction Goals for Pleasant Bay, October 2020. This report provides an update to the Pleasant Bay Nitrogen Management Alternatives Analysis Report mentioned above. The update was prepared for the Select Board and incorporates updated information on the nitrogen management alternatives available t o Brewster based on the requirements of the DEP Permit issued in 2018. • Mill Ponds Management Plan, November 2014. This report, prepared by the School for Marine Science and Technology (SMAST) at the University of Massachusetts, provided recommendations for the restoration of Upper Mill, Lower Mill and Walkers Pond. Based on these recommendations, the Town purchased a weed harvester to help manage Walkers Pond. They also conducted an alum treatment in Upper Mill Pond to reduce water quality impacts from phosphorus historically discharged to the pond, which is now contained in the sediment on the pond bottom. • Water Resource Atlas – Fresh Water Ponds. This Atlas provide maps of the surface watersheds and groundwater recharge areas to each pond in Brewster, and provides the areas proposed for additional septic system management within 300 feet on the upgradient side of each pond, and 100 feet on the downgradient side of the pond. Additional reports have been prepared as part of the Massachusetts Estuaries Project and on behalf of the Pleasant Bay Alliance and these are referenced in the following section of this report. Implementation of the IWRMP The Town’s actions to implement recommendations in the IWRMP are currently focused on the following topics: • Nitrogen reduction in the Pleasant Bay Watershed, as required in the watershed permit issued by DEP. • Actions to protect and restore water quality in the Town’s freshwater ponds. • Implementation of the recently adopted stormwater management bylaw to protect water quality. • Plans to reduce future nitrogen loading in the Herring River watershed. An update on the status of each of these topics is provided below, summarizing the actions being considered, the associated costs, and the work needed to make final decisions. 8 Pleasant Bay Watershed Brewster has collaborated on managing nitrogen in Pleasant Bay with the other towns in the watershed through the Pleasant Bay Alliance. This has included documenting the nitrogen removal responsibilities for each town and establishing the Pleasant Bay Watershed Permit with DEP that provides a framework to meet these nitrogen reduction goals over a 20-year period. The details of these plans are summarized in the Pleasant Bay Targeted Watershed Management Plan, prepared by the Alliance and referenced in the DEP Permit. Much of the data in this plan was obtained from the 2006 Linked Watershed Model, developed by SMAST, as part of the Massachusetts Estuaries Program (Univ of MA Dartmouth, May 2006). It documents the existing nitrogen loading from each town, divided up by the watersheds contributing groundwater to the Bay. It then establishes the nitrogen reduction requirements for each town in each watershed. The Permit requires Brewster to remove of 2,262 kg N/year from the watershed and to address nitrogen impacts from future development. At the time it was issued, the Town had already removed 56% of this load, taking advantage of fertilizer and irrigation management at Captains Golf Course as well as the adoption of a town-wide fertilizer management bylaw (Table -1). This was done with minimal cost to the Town. Total Nitrogen Reduction Required 2,262 kg N/year Golf Fertilization Reduction -930 kg N/year Golf Irrigation Recapture -230 kg N/year Town-wide Fertilizer Bylaw -121 kg N/year Total Nitrogen Removed to Date -1,281 kg N/year Remaining Reduction Needed 981 kg/N/year Table -1 Pleasant Bay Nitrogen Load Summary The permit also requires that the Town address nitrogen inputs from future development in the watershed. Based on an assessment in 2018 (HW, April 2018), this could include an additional 1,209 kg N/year. The Pleasant Bay Alliance will be working over the next year to update this buildout number to assist with the planning needed to manage this additional load. Any future load created will have to be offset by further reductions in existing loads. The Pleasant Bay Alliance is currently working with SMAST to evaluate and revise the nitrogen reduction requirements for each Town based on updated land use information since the initial report was prepared in 2006 and considering the changes in hydrology in Pleasant Bay given the new inlet that was formed in 20 07 that increases the tidal flushing in the estuary. The extent of nitrogen entering Pleasant Bay from the Tar Kiln portion of the watershed is currently being reviewed and is an important issue for the Town. If groundwater containing 9 nitrogen enters a freshwater pond or wetland, some of the nitrogen is attenuated, or taken up by the algae and plants, and less is transferred back into groundwater which then flows to Pleasant Bay. No attenuation was attributed to the Tar Kiln watershed in the initial SMAST Model, but recent studies by SMAST led them to conclude that there is attenuation in this marsh system. As such, the existing nitrogen impact from this watershed is reduced , meaning that septic systems, lawns and stormwater in this area of the watershed do not have as much impact on Pleasant Bay. However, a portion of Captains Golf Course lies in this watershed, and the plans for managing further nitrogen reductions may be somewhat offset by the new attenuation attributed to the Tar Kiln Marsh. The Town is working with the Pleasant Bay Alliance to quantify how this affects Brewster’s requirements under the Watershed Permit. However, the effects should not be significant enough to require major changes in the plans developed to date. The options to fully comply with the Watershed Permit are summarized below. One major opportunity is continued fertilizer management at Captains Golf Course . The extent to which this will reduce nitrogen loading will affect the scale and cost of the other options the Town is considering. Each option is discussed below, with an initial estimate of the cost for implementation. Golf Course Fertilizer and Wastewater Management In 2020, the Town has collaborated with the U.S. Golf Association to identify additional strategies to further reduce nitrogen inputs at Captains Golf Course. Proposed changes at the golf course include: • Changes in fertilization practices to reduce applications on the fairways and roughs, incorporating sprayed applications of liquid fertilizers that can be readily adsorbed by the turf. These new practices began in 2020. • Reductions in the size of fairways by a total of approximately 2.5 acres by converting this turf to rough and reducing fertilizer demand. The areas selected are based on an inspection by the U.S. Golf Association and would not hinder the way the course is used. • Installation of a nitrogen treatment system to the septic system at the course that would reduce the nitrogen concentration in the effluent to 10 mg/L or less. If implemented, these actions would further reduce nitrogen loading by 458 kg/year, such that the Town will only need to manage the remaining current nitrogen load of 523 kg/year. There would be little to no cost for changes in fertilization applications, the cost for the adjustments to the size of the fairways would cost about $20,000 and the septic system upgrades would cost approximately $200,000. The golf course has already begun to implement the sprayed applications of fertilizer at reduced rates and this process will continue moving forward. Nitrogen Reduction 458 kg/year Estimated Cost $220,000 – Current Estimate 10 Golf Course Fertilizer Leaching Rate Evaluation Separate from the reduced amount of fertilizer applied to the golf course turf, the Town could receive a nitrogen reduction credit related to the amount of fertilizer that actually leaches into groundwater and flows to Pleasant Bay. Currently the DEP watershed permit assumes that 20% of the nitrogen in fertilizers leaches into groundwater. The proposed management practices will likely reduce this leaching rate. If so, additional nitrogen reduction credits can be obtained. The Town has begun a study to evaluate the fertilizer leaching rate that involves the testing of water in the soil and the underlying groundwater for nitrogen. A series of six lysimeters have been installed in the golf course fairways that capture water infiltrat ing through the upper 1-2 feet of soil. Six monitoring wells located near the lysimeters have also been installed. Quarterly testing of nitrogen concentrations will be conducted for two years to document how much nitrogen applied in fertilizer actually enters groundwater below the golf course. Based on this data, an updated leaching rate for fertilizers will be documented and used to determine the remaining nitrogen load that must be managed by Brewster. This option is attractive because the only expense is the cost for a study to document this leaching rate. If the leaching rate is substantially lower, the nitrogen reduction requirements for both existing and future loads could be reduced. Nitrogen Reduction To be determined Cost (for leaching rate study) $140,000 – funded in 2021 study is underway Install a Neighborhood Wastewater Treatment and Collection System A traditional wastewater system could be installed in the upper, western portion of the watershed to treat effluent prior to its discharge to groundwater. This area was selected based on the concentration of development that reduces the length , and therefore the cost, of sewer lines needed to collect wastewater. There are two options for this, either site the wastewater disposal field in the watershed or locate it outside the watershed. If the disposal field is not within the watershed, all the nitrogen from the homes connected to the system is removed, and therefore fewer homes need to be connected to reach the required nitrogen load reduction. The siting of a disposal field outside the Pleasant Bay watershed needs to account of potential impacts to drinking water supplies or other sensitive watersheds. The sizing of the system assumes no change in the golf course leaching rate. Both of these options could be expanded to accommodate additional nitrogen from future development . The costs listed below are broken out into those needed to design and permit the system and those needed for construction and a long term (20-year) operation. 11 Disposal in the watershed Disposal outside the watershed No. of Homes 152 No. of Homes 110 Nitrogen removed 523 kg/yr. Nitrogen reduction 523 kg/yr. Planning Cost $450,000 Planning Cost $400,000 20-year cost $10,000,000-$15,000,000 20-year cost $9,000,000 Onsite Septic System Treatment Upgrades Septic systems serving individual properties could be upgraded to provide additional nitrogen treatment. Currently, it may be possible to utilize an innovative treatment system to treat nitrogen to about 12 mg/L, well below the typical system which discharges nitrogen at a concentration of about 35 mg/L. There are innovative systems that could meet this goal, but they are still being evaluated. Based on the best, currently available data, approximately 320 septic systems would need to be upgraded to this relatively new technology to provide the necessary nitrogen reduction. This number may change based on the results from the golf course leaching rate study and the nitrogen attenuation attributed to the Tar Kiln Marsh watershed. More septic systems could be upgraded with nitrogen treatment to help accommodate future nitrogen loads from buildout . The Pleasant Bay Alliance evaluated the cost for the design, construction and long-term operation of these systems and reported that the price for an individual system could run as high as $33,900 with annual operation and maintenance costs of $2,360 (HW, 2020, Appendix C). Over 20 years this results in a total cost for 320 properties of $26,000,000. This cost makes this option more expensive than the neighborhood system described above. The Town is continuing to evaluate these costs, based in part on a pilot program led by the Barnstable Clean Water Coalition documenting actual construction costs for 15-20 systems which are somewhat lower than that estimated by the Alliance. The use of these systems could be beneficial if the leaching rate study at the golf course shows fewer of them are needed. They may also be useful for managing future development not just in the Pleasant Bay watershed but in watersheds adjacent to freshwater ponds as well. No. of Homes 320 Nitrogen reduction 523 kg/yr. 20-year cost $26,000,000 Nitrogen Trading The Town can negotiate a “nitrogen trade” with another Pleasant Bay town by financing nitrogen removal actions they are taking. As an example, if a neighborhood treatment plant would cost $10,000,000 to remove 523 kg N/year, the Town could negotiate an agreement with Harwich, Orleans, or Chatham to fund wastewater treatment in their community to remove the same amount of nitrogen, taking advantage of economies of scale and excess nitrogen removal in their new wastewater systems. The size and cost of the trade could be adjusted to 12 accommodate future nitrogen impacts from buildout. This would eliminate the long-term management of a facility in Brewster. Buildout Nitrogen Management Under the Watershed Permit, Brewster needs to develop a plan to ensure future development is managed to keep the nitrogen loading in the Town’s portion of the watershed within the levels allowed for Pleasant Bay. Part of this can be accomplished through the strategies discussed above. In addition, there are regulatory options that the Town can evaluate to make sure that the loading from future development is minimized to the extent possible. The Water Quality Review Bylaw currently in place limits the amount of nitrogen from development within the Pleasant Bay watershed. For any new project, or for an expansion of an existing development, the applicant must demonstrate the overall nitrogen load is limited to an average of 5 mg/L in groundwater underneath the site. Several changes to this bylaw were approved by Town Meeting in November 2021 and the Board of Health recently approved related nitrogen loading calculation regulations pending town counsel review. This 5 mg/L limit applies to both residential properties and to commercial/industrial areas also located within the Pleasant Bay watershed. The Town is considering changing the 5mg/L limit for commercial and industrial properties to 3 mg/L. If this change is made, the overall nitrogen load from buildout is reduced by 25-30% in this watershed. New data from the Pleasant Bay Alliance’s ongoing buildout assessment will refine the actual benefit of this change. Preliminary calculations suggest that most commercial/industrial uses allowed in the watershed could comply with the 3 mg/L threshold. If not, a project may need to install an innovative septic system technology to treat nitrogen in wastewater effluent to meet this goal. Given any new development increases the overall nitrogen management load, it is worthwhile to consider having some limitations on the extent of additional load that could be allowed. Other buildout options include limiting the extent of development allowed on town -owned properties within the watershed and further limiting the allowable nitrogen load from residential properties. Further discussion and public input are needed on these options. These discussions will benefit from the ongoing collection of data from the golf course study discussed above. In summary, there are several viable options to fully comply with Brewster’s obligations under the Pleasant Bay Watershed Permit. The proposed leaching rate study will document potential additional nitrogen reductions at the golf course with minimal cost. This would further reduce the costs for the remaining actions the town will have to take. The neighborhood wastewater treatment options could be used to manage the remaining nitrogen or as a basis for a nitrogen trade with another Pleasant Bay town. Each of these options can also be expanded, if needed, to accommodate future development. The Town is required to provide annual updates to DEP under the Watershed Permit and coordinates these updates with the other Pleasant Bay 13 Towns. The Cape Cod Commission also reviews ongoing work in the watershed as part of its implementation of the Section 208 Area Wide Water Quality Management Plan. Its most recent review is provided in Appendix A. Fresh Water Ponds As discussed above, if too much phosphorus enters a pond, it will accelerate the growth of algae. When algae dies it decays, and as this happens the oxygen in the water column is depleted. In extreme situations, this results in fish kills as there is not enough oxygen to keep the fish alive. Phosphorus does not travel far in groundwater as it readily binds to the iron and manganese in the subsurface soils and sediments. This means that, for phosphorus, the primary concerns with septic systems are those located within 300 feet of a pond on the upgradient side where groundwater is traveling towards the pond. Recent studies have shown that nitrogen is also a concern in ponds, as the combination of nitrogen and phosphorus can create conditions that support the growth of cyanobacteria, a toxic organism that can a ffect people and wildlife. Water Quality Data The Town has conducted regular water quality monitoring of many of the larger ponds in Brewster and used that information to support restoration projects in Long Pond, Walkers Pond, and Upper Mill Pond. A summary of this water quality data was last published in 2009. An update on the current water quality status based on the data collected since 2009 would be useful and the Town is working to review ongoing monitoring data and develop a new status report. The cost for this update report is estimated at $50,000. It should be noted that bacteria testing of pond water quality is also conducted by the Board of Health monitoring water quality at the public beaches at ponds in Town. Board of Health Septic Regulations The Board of Health currently has a regulation prohibiting septic system leaching facilities within 300 feet of a pond. This serves to minimize phosphorus impacts from future development. However, there are approximately 600 properties either fully or partially within the 300-foot buffer to the ponds in Brewster. Applicants looking to update or expand their septic system are regularly asking for a variance to this regulation as they cannot move their leaching facility outside the 300-foot buffer. HW prepared a draft revision to this Board of Health regulation in 2016. The draft requires septic systems within 300 feet upgradient and 100 feet downgradient of a pond to install a leaching facility or alternative technology that will provide phosphorus treatment. This regulation was discussed at a public Board of Health Hearing in 2016. There were questions related to the cost of the treatment systems and the performance of the technologies available at that time for phosphorus treatment. Further evaluation of the draft regulation is needed to advance the process to restore pond water quality. In part, it needs to consider the treatment 14 for nitrogen as well as phosphorus given concerns about cyanobacteria. Along with evaluating the technologies available, it will be important to consider the cost of implementing a new regulation and the process for funding it. Innovative/Alternative Septic Pilot Program In 2018, a charrette was held with members of the Board of Health, Town staff, local design engineers and a representative from the MA Septic System Test Center to evaluate the proposed phosphorus treatment technologies then available and associated costs. The installation of pilot systems within 300 feet of one or more ponds in Brewster to test the technology and document the costs was recommended at each session. Newer technologies are now being tested to document their performa nce for treating both nutrients and these could be incorporated into a pilot project in Brewster. A pilot project testing 6 innovative septic systems would cost approximately $300,000. Based on recent work conducted in the Shubael Pond neighborhood by the Barnstable Clean Water Coalition (December 2021), the cost to design, permit and install an alternative treatment system is approximately $20,000-$25,000. Note, this cost is lower than the estimate for similar systems developed by the Pleasant Bay Alliance. This is in part due to the need for a greater amount of monitoring of the systems under the Pleasant Bay Permit. The cost for each site will vary based on the size of the property, the slope of the land and the operational status of the existing septic tank and leaching facility (if they can be maintained). There may be more affordable technologies, but this provides an initial estimate for implementing this regulation. Large-Scale Innovative/Alternative Septic Upgrades The overall cost if all 600 properties within the proposed setback to ponds were upgraded would be approximately $12,000,000 to $15,000,000. There would also be annual operation, maintenance and monitoring fees for these systems. Further discussion on who should pay for some or all of these upgrades is needed. Not all ponds in Brewster are accessible by the public, as the shoreline at some locations is all privately owned. A question that has been raised is whether the town should provide funding for system upgrades if there is no public access. The next steps for implementing actions for ponds include: • Updating information available on the technologies that can provide phosphorus and nitrogen treatment, including their performance and cost. • Revising the draft health regulation. • Evaluating other sources of nutrient pollution to ponds and develop strategies to minimize these threats. 15 As discussed below, the stormwater bylaw adopted in November 2021 will help with pond water quality management. Additional outreach and public discussion will be needed to achieve consensus on the best approach for pond management. Neighborhood Sewer Systems It should be noted that there was discussion about providing neighborhood sewer systems around ponds in Brewster at the public meeting in 2016 and at the charrette in 2018. This option seems to be significantly more costly than using individual onsite systems. It would not be feasible to construct one system to sewer all the areas around Brewster’s ponds. There would be a need to construct sewer lines around each pond as well as multiple treatment facilities. In addition, a location for each neighborhood system would also have to be selected and acquired by the owner of the facility, be it the Town or a neighborhood association. Further analysis comparing neighborhood sewer systems to individual systems will need to be part of future technical evaluation and public policy discussions. Stormwater Management Stormwater management has been a key part of the IWRMP process since the beginning. During the development of Phase II of the IWRMP, a series of proposed stormwater improvements were identified to limit the direct discharge of stormwater to surface waters in Town. One location was the town-owned boat ramp for Long Pond on Crowells Bog Road. Currently stormwater runs directly down the access road into the Pond. However, the Town is redesigning the boat ramp, parking area, and incorporating updated stormwater practices to prevent direct discharge of untreated runoff into Long Pond. Other stormwater improvements at Breakwater Landing, Crosby Landing and Paine’s Creek have been completed and the Walker’s Pond boat ramp upgrade is planned for this spring. Brewster adopted a new stormwater management bylaw at its November 2021 Town Meeting. This bylaw is required under the federal Municipal Separate Storm Sewer (MS4) regulation under the federal Clean Water Act. The bylaw requires both minor and major projects to design and build stormwater management systems to prevent the overland flow of water directly to ponds and coastal waters. It also incorporates treatment requirements to protect groundwater quality where stormwater is infiltrated into the ground. Over time it will help improve water quality, especially in areas where stormwater is currently flowing directly to a surface water. Projects creating less than 500 square feet of impervious cover or disturbing less than 10,000 square feet of land are required to apply for a minor permit. As part of the application the runoff volume from the project must be calculated and one or more stormwater management practices, such as a rain garden or vegetated swale must be sized and installed. Larger projects must apply for a major permit to be reviewed by either the Planning Board or the Conservation Commission if the Conservation Commission has jurisdiction under the state Wetlands 16 Protection Act. These larger projects must document that the stormwater will be managed in accordance with the state’s stormwater management regulations. The Planning Board is now finalizing a set of implementation regulations for the bylaw. They are also working with Town staff to develop application forms and instructions for both the major and minor permits. These new requirements for stormwater will help improve water quality through Brewster. Herring River Watershed As mentioned above, the Town’s obligations for nitrogen management in the Herring River watershed involve limiting the nitrogen load from future development. The strategies considered for future development in the Pleasant Bay watershed could be applied for the Herring River watershed as well. Further work is needed to quantify the extent of buildout possible in this watershed given recent open space acquisitions by the Town to refine the management strategies for Herring River. Summary of Potential Costs & Funding Sources Based on the information provided above, the overall cost for implementing the primary components of the IWRMP as of 2022 is approximately $22,970,000 - $31,070,000. Table 2 shows a breakdown of costs for the Pleasant Bay watershed and freshwater pond man agement which are the two issues with significant management costs. For Pleasant Bay, the overall cost includes the neighborhood wastewater treatment plant option as this is less expense than using individual septic treatment systems. In most towns, the implementation of wastewater management strategies includes funding from the property owner and the town. How the funding is managed in Brewster still needs to be evaluated. The extent of town funding is often based on the benefits received by all residents in the town. For example, the restoration of water quality in a pond or coastal estuary can benefit all resident who have access to the water. Table 2 also provides information on the potential for the Town to obtain a State Revolving Fund (SRF) loan to finance the costs or to get funding from the recently created Cape Cod and Islands Water Protection Fund (CCIWPF). Funding for CCIWPF is through taxes on hotels and short-term rental facilities. To receive an SRF Loan, the Town must apply through the MA Clean Water Trust. If the Trust approves a project, it is then eligible for funding from the CCIWPF . The CCIWPF funds are used to repay a portion of the SRF loan. For a project to be eligible for SRF funding, the Trust requires DEP approval of a comprehensive wastewater management plan, IWRMP, targeted watershed plan or project specific plan. Cape Cod Commission Clean Water Act Section 208 approval is also required for a project to be eligible for SRF funding. Proposed project(s) must be submitted to the Clean Water Trust for Table 2: Summary of IWRMP Costs and Funding Options Pleasant Bay Watershed Project Golf Course Fertilizer Adjustment and Fairway Size Refinements Cost: $20,000 SRF Funding Eligibility No CCIWPF Eligibility No Construction of Captains Golf Course I/A Treatment System. Cost: $200,000 SRF Funding Eligibility Possible CCIWPF Eligibility Possible at 50% of SRF cost WWTP Planning. Cost: $200,000 - $225,000 SRF Funding Eligibility Possible CCIWPF Eligibility Possible – At about 50% WWTP Design and Permitting. Cost: $200,000 - $225,000 SRF Funding Eligibility No CCIWPF Eligibility No Construction of a Neighborhood WWTP*. Cost: $10,000,000 - $15,000,000 SRF Funding Eligibility Possible CCIWPF Eligibility Possible –at 25% Fresh Water Ponds Project Development of an Updated Report on Pond Water Quality Cost: $50,000 SRF Funding Eligibility Possible CCIWPF Eligibility Possible – At about 50% Development of a Pilot Program for Septic Upgrades Near Freshwater Ponds. Cost: $300,000 - $350,000 SRF Funding Eligibility Possible CCIWPF Eligibility Possible – At about 50% Installation of I/A Septic Systems Adjacent to Fresh Water Ponds. Cost: $12,000,000 - $15,000,000 SRF Funding Eligibility Unlikely CCIWPF Eligibility Unlikely Total Cost: $22,970,000 - $31,070,000 Total SRF Funding Eligibility $10,750,000 - $15,825,000 Total CCIWPF Eligibility $2,875,000 - $4,162,500 * Note: The WWTP cost is for the larger system serving approximately 150 homes. The costs for onsite septic treatment systems for Pleasant Bay are not included here as the neighborhood WWTP is currently the more cost-effective option. 17 inclusion on the annual Intended Use Plan. If a project is included on the plan, it is then eligible for SRF funding. Funding is provided as a 20-year loan with a maximum interest rate of 2%. Some projects can qualify for a lower interest rate as well. Projects demonstrating their implementation will not result in any growth in development can qualify for a 0% interest rate. In 2021, 75% of the projects that requested SRF support were awarded a loan by the Clean Water Trust. The CCIWPF provides separate funds, as grants to the Towns that participate in the program. The funds are provided only for projects approved for an SRF loan. Each year the grants are provided based on the funds available and the number of projects eligible for funding. This data is used to select a subsidy percentage for each project. For the first round of funding through the CCIWPF, awards for projects on the Intended Use Plan were provided at a rate of 25% of the project cost. Small projects, below $1,000,000, are eligible for twice the percentage awarded to other projects. Awards for all projects are paid out in equal installments over four years after they are awarded. Per correspondence with DEP officials in Summer 2021, based on the information provided in Table 2, Brewster could potentially receive SRF funding on one or more 20-year loans, for the planning projects, the installation of the septic treatment system at Captains Golf Course, and the construction of the neighborhood wastewater facility. A total of $10,750,000 - $15,825,000 could be funded. If awarded SRF funding, there would then be funds available from the CCIWPF to support the repayment of the SRF loans. Assuming a 25% payment of the cost of each project (and 50% for projects under $1,000,000 in cost) a total of $2,875,000 - $4,162,500 could be financed through the CCIWPF. Conclusions – Summary of Next Steps Reducing the nitrogen load to Pleasant Bay and developing a plan to restore pond water quality are the two main water resource issues for Brewster. For Pleasant Bay, the extent of nitrogen reduction that can be achieved at Captains Golf Course will determine the extent of wastewater management needed in the watershed, either through a neighborhood wastewater treatment plant, the use of nitrogen treatment technologies for onsite septic systems or a nitrogen trade with another town in the watershed. For freshwater ponds, the Town is planning to develop updated information on their water quality status. With that information, the primary goal is to develop a program to upgrade septic systems along the pond shores to minimize impacts from nitrogen and phosphorus. Following additional data collection and technical analysis, d ecisions on these topics will need to be made in the next 1-3 years and ongoing outreach is planned to obtain input from town residents to help inform these critical policy decisions. 18 REFERENCES Barnstable Clean Water Coalition. December 2021. Coalition Quarterly – Fall 2021 Newsletter. https://bcleanwater.org/living-lab-cape-cod-blog/coalition-quarterly-issue-17-fall-2021/. Cape Cod Commission, 2017. Watershed Report – Quivett Creek, Brewster and Dennis. https://www.capecodcommission.org/resource- library/file/?url=/dept/commission/team/Website_Resources/208/watershedreports/2017_Wa tershed_Report_MC_Quivett_Creek.pdf . Horsley Witten Group, Inc. July 2020. Pleasant Bay Alliance Task 1A: On -Site Denitrification Systems Summary Report. Prepared with grant funding from the EPA Southeast New England Program. Horsley Witten Group, Inc. April 16, 2018. Memorandum - Updated Buildout Analysis for the Pleasant Bay Watershed. Horsley Witten Group, Inc. January 2013. Integrated Water Resource Management Plan - Phase II Report Horsley Witten Group, Inc. March 2015. Pleasant Bay Nitrogen Management Alternatives Analysis Report. Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection. August 2018. Pleasant Bay Watershed Permit 001-0. Pleasant Bay Alliance. March 2018. Pleasant Bay Targeted Watershed Management Plan. Town of Brewster Water Department, June 2021. 2020 Water Quality Report (CCR). (https://www.brewster-ma.gov/departments-mainmenu-26/water-department-mainmenu-39) University of Massachusetts Dartmouth School of Marine Science and Technology. May 2006. Linked Watershed-Embayment Model to Determine Critical Nitrogen Loading Thresholds for the Pleasant Bay System, Orleans, Chatham and Harwich, Massachusetts. University of Massachusetts Dartmouth School of Marine Science and Technology. December 2008. Linked Watershed-Embayment Model to Determine Critical Nitrogen Loading Thresholds for the Namskaket Marsh Estuarine System, Orleans, Massachusetts. 19 University of Massachusetts Dartmouth School of Marine Science and Technology. April 2011. Linked Watershed-Embayment Model to Determine Critical Nitrogen Loading Thresholds for the Bass River Embayment System, Towns of Yarmouth and Dennis, Massachusetts. University of Massachusetts Dartmouth School of Marine Science and Technology. March 2013. Linked Watershed-Embayment Model to Determine Critical Nitrogen Loading Thresholds for the Herring River System, Harwich, Massachusetts. University of Massachusetts Dartmouth School of Marine Science and Technology. June 2021. Linked Watershed-Embayment Model to Determine Critical Nitrogen Loading Thresholds for the Pleasant Bay System, Orleans, Chatham and Harwich, Massachusetts 2020 Update Final Report. Appendix A - 208 Compliance Reports 2021 The Cumulative Town Snapshot section summarizes the funding snapshot categories since 2015 Complete or Approved Partial Not Shared or Not Approved Not AvailableSYMBOL LEGEND OTHER LEGEND The Cumulative Town Snapshot section summarizes the funding snapshot categories since 2015 Progress shown is for the period from November 2020 through November 2021 208 COMPLIANCE REPORT | 2021 Brewster Town Team: • Comprehensive Water Planning Committee (dissolved 2015) • Water Quality Review Committee • Town Planner • Health Agent • Natural Resources Director • Horsley Witten Group Collaborations: • Pleasant Bay Alliance • Town of Chatham • Town of Harwich • Town of Orleans • MassDEP • Cape Cod Commission • SNEP Network Town of Brewster Town(s) with Joint Agreement or Plan in Place Priority Watershed Watershed 28,910 kg N22,690 kg N 48,210 kg N40,201 kg N Town of ALL PROPERTIES SERVED BY CENTRALIZED SYSTEMS - Plans and permits in the priority watersheds as identified by the 208 Plan Implementation Report in 2017. *Bass River watershed, <1% nitrogen allocation for Brewster **Swan Pond River watershed, <1% nitrogen allocation for Brewster * ** PRIORITY WATERSHED PROGRESSTEAM Team members engaged in water quality planning efforts. MS4 COMPLIANCE 12 Cape Cod towns are required to address stormwater discharge under the MS4 Permit. Towns with nitrogen impaired waters must meet additional permit requirements. TMDLTMDL NON- TRADITIONAL PROJECTS UNDERWAY TOTAL FLOW COLLECTED BY CENTRALIZED SYSTEMS TOWN MEETING APPROVED FUNDING CUMULATIVE TOWN SNAPSHOT SINCE 208 PLAN APPROVAL GRANT FUNDING RECEIVED 3 -$612K $482K* Subject to MS4 Permit No Additional nitrogen related requirements In compliance with MS4 Permit requirements Plan In Place Agreement In Place Consistency Determination Permits Issued Plan In Place Pleasant Bay Watershed Plan (2018) Agreement In Place Pleasant Bay IMA Consistency Determination 208 Consistency Determination (2018) Permits Issued Watershed Permit (2018) Pleasant BayHerring River (Harwich) Current Attenuated Watershed Load Current Attenuated Watershed Load Complete or Approved Partial Not Shared or Not Approved Not AvailableSYMBOL LEGEND OTHER LEGEND Text color indicates that data made available is 5 years or older 2016 201720192019Brewster 208 COMPLIANCE REPORT | 2021 WATER USE EMBAYMENT MONITORING PARCEL DATA ASSESSOR DATA TOWN REGIONAL DATA SHARING STATUSTown of IMPLEMENTATION Actions taken relative to plan and project implementation and regulatory and town meeting actions. FUNDING Cape Cod and Islands Water Protection Fund Member Community Actions taken during the reporting period to secure funding for water quality improvement plans and projects. Progress shown is for the period from November 2020 through November 2021 TOWN IMPLEMENTATION ACTIONS LOCAL REGULATORY ACTIONS Fertilizer By-Law in Place Zoning Changes • None in reporting period Adoption of Regulations • None in reporting period Town Funding Actions • 2021 Professional services for MS4 stormwater permitting and compliance ($80,000 Approved) • 2021 Walkers Pond Water Quality Evaluation ($40,000 Approved) • 2021 Pleasant Bay Fertilizer Impact Assessment at Captains Golf Course ($140,000 Approved) • 2021 Integrated Water Resources Planning and Implementation ($75,000 Approved) Grant Funding • None in reporting period Implementation Actions reflect unfunded municipal actions such as, inter-municipal agreements, procedural approvals, and committee actions. • None in reporting period * From Town Snapshot: grant funds reflect a decrease of $20k from the 2020 report, as a grant was previously duplicated. PROJECT STATUS Project Stage Captains Golf Course Fertilizer Reduction Captains Golf Course Fertigation On-site Denitrification Systems PRestoration Project Remediation Project Reduction Project Pilot project FEASIBILITY IMPLEMENTATION IMPLEMENTATION AGREEMENT FOR PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERING SERVICES BETWEEN THE TOWN OF BREWSTER, MASSACHUSETTS AND Horsley Witten Group FOR Integrated Water Resource Management Plan FY22 THIS AGREEMENT made this 20th day of September, 2022 between Horsley Witten Group, with a usual place of business at 90 Route 6A Unit 1 Sandwich MA 02563, hereinafter called the “ENGINEER,” and the Town of Brewster, MA, acting by its Town Administrator, with a usual place of business at 2198 Main Street, Town Hall, Brewster MA 02631 hereinafter called the “TOWN”. The ENGINEER and the TOWN, for the consideration hereinafter named, agree as follows: 1. Scope of Work The ENGINEER shall perform the work set forth in the Scope of Services attached hereto as Exhibit A. 2. Contract Price The TOWN shall pay the ENGINEER for services rendered in the performance of this Agreement ($109,450.00) One Hundred Nine Thousand Four Hundred and Fifty Dollars and 00 cents total, as outlined in Exhibit A. The Town currently has $75,000 in funding which was approved at the May 2022 Annual Town meeting. The amount to be paid to the ENGINEER shall not exceed $75,000 without the prior written consent of the TOWN. The additional $34,450 to be authorized by the Town after the November 14, 2022 town meeting approval. 3. Commencement and Completion of Work A. This Agreement shall commence on September 20, 2022 and shall expire on September 30, 2023, unless terminated sooner in accordance with this Agreement. B. Progress and Completion: ENGINEER shall commence work promptly upon execution of this Agreement and shall prosecute and complete the work regularly, diligently and uninterruptedly at such a rate of progress as will insure completion in a timely manner. 4. Performance of the Work The ENGINEER shall supervise and direct the Work, using his best skills and attention, which shall not be less than such state of skill and attention generally rendered by the engineering/design profession for projects similar to the Project in scope, difficulty and location. Doc ID: f3151e604f25457688ac289ebe7b46f27397c04c 2 A. Responsibility for the Work: (1) The ENGINEER shall be responsible to the TOWN for the acts and omissions of his employees, subcontractors and their agents and employees, and other persons performing any of the Work under a contract with the ENGINEER. Consistent with the standard of care referenced above, the ENGINEER shall be responsible for the professional and technical accuracy for all work or services furnished by him or his consultants and subcontractors. The ENGINEER shall perform his work under this Agreement in such a competent and professional manner that detail checking and reviewing by the TOWN shall not be necessary. (2) The ENGINEER shall not employ additional consultants, nor sublet, assign or transfer any part of his services or obligations under this Agreement without the prior approval and written consent of the TOWN. Such written consent shall not in any way relieve the ENGINEER from his responsibility for the professional and technical accuracy for the work or services furnished under this Agreement. (3) All consultants must be registered and licensed in their respective disciplines if registration and licensor are required under the applicable provisions of Massachusetts law. (4) The ENGINEER and all consultants and subcontractors shall conform their work and services to any guidelines, standards and regulations of any governmental authority applicable to the type of work or services covered by this Agreement. (5) The ENGINEER shall not be relieved from its obligations to perform the work in accordance with the requirements of this Agreement either by the activities or duties of the TOWN in its administration of the Agreement, or by inspections, tests or approvals required or performed by persons other than the ENGINEER. (6) Neither the TOWN's review, approval or acceptance of, nor payment for any of the work or services performed shall be construed to operate as a waiver of any rights under the Agreement or any cause of action arising out of the performance of the Agreement. B. Deliverables, Ownership of Documents: One (1) reproducible copy of all drawings, plans, specifications and other documents prepared by the ENGINEER shall become the property of the TOWN upon payment in full therefor to the ENGINEER. Ownership of stamped drawings and specifications shall not include the ENGINEER's certification or stamp. Any re-use of such documents without the ENGINEER's written verification of suitability for the specific purpose intended shall be without liability or legal exposure to the ENGINEER or Doc ID: f3151e604f25457688ac289ebe7b46f27397c04c 3 to the ENGINEER's independent professional associates, subcontractors or consultants. Distribution or submission to meet official regulatory requirements or for other purposes in connection with the Project is not to be construed as an act in derogation of the ENGINEER's rights under this Agreement. C. Compliance With Laws: In the performance of the Work, the ENGINEER shall comply with all applicable federal, state and local laws and regulations, including those relating to workplace and employee safety. 5. Site Information Not Guaranteed; Contractor's Investigation The TOWN shall furnish to the ENGINEER available surveys, data and documents relating to the area which is the subject of the Scope of Work. All such information, including that relating to subsurface and other conditions, natural phenomena, existing pipes, and other structures is from the best sources at present available to the TOWN. All such information is furnished only for the information and convenience of the ENGINEER and is not guaranteed. It is agreed and understood that the TOWN does not warrant or guarantee that the subsurface or other conditions, natural phenomena, existing pipes, or other structures will be the same as those indicated in the information furnished, and the ENGINEER must satisfy himself as to the correctness of such information. If, in the opinion of the ENGINEER, such information is inadequate, the ENGINEER may request the TOWN's approval to verify such information through the use of consultants or additional exploration. In no case shall the ENGINEER commence such work without the TOWN's prior written consent. Such work shall be compensated as agreed upon by TOWN and ENGINEER. 6. Payments to the Contractor A. Cost incurred on this project shall be billed monthly on an hourly basis as outlined in the attached Scope of Services. Payment shall be due 30 days after receipt of an invoice by the TOWN. B. If there is a material change in the scope of work, the TOWN and the ENGINEER shall mutually agree to an adjustment in the Contract Price. C. If the TOWN authorizes the ENGINEER to perform additional services, the ENGINEER shall be compensated in an amount mutually agreed upon, in advance, in writing. Except in the case of an emergency, the ENGINEER shall not perform any additional services until such compensation has been so established. 7. Reimbursement Except as otherwise included in the Contract Price or otherwise provided for under this Agreement, the ENGINEER shall be reimbursed by the TOWN: (a) at 1.0 times the actual cost to the ENGINEER of consultants retained to obtain information pursuant to Article 5 hereof or otherwise. No such reimbursement shall be made unless the rates of compensation have been approved, in advance, by the TOWN; (b) at 1.0 times the actual cost of additional or specially authorized expense items, as approved by the TOWN. Doc ID: f3151e604f25457688ac289ebe7b46f27397c04c 4 8. Final Payment, Effect The acceptance of final payment by the ENGINEER shall constitute a waiver of all claims by the ENGINEER arising under the Agreement. 9. Terms Required By Law This Agreement shall be considered to include all terms required to be included in it by the Massachusetts General Laws, and all other laws, as though such terms were set forth in full herein. 10. Indemnification A. General Liability: The ENGINEER shall indemnify and hold harmless the TOWN from and against any and all claims, damages, losses, and expenses, including attorney's fees, to the extent arising out of the performance of this Agreement and to the extent the same relate to matters of general commercial liability, when such claims, damages, losses, and expenses are caused, in whole or in part, by the negligent or wrongful acts or omissions of the ENGINEER or his employees, agents, subcontractors or representatives. B. Professional Liability: The ENGINEER shall indemnify and hold harmless the TOWN from and against any and all claims, damages, losses, and expenses, including attorney's fees, arising out of the performance of this Agreement and to the extent the same relate to the professional competence of the ENGINEER's services, when such claims, damages, losses, and expenses are caused, in whole or in part, by the negligent acts, negligent errors or omissions of the ENGINEER or his employees, agents, subcontractors or representatives. 11. Insurance A. The ENGINEER shall at his own expense obtain and maintain a Professional Liability Insurance policy for errors, omissions or negligent acts arising out of the performance of this Agreement in a minimum amount of $1,000,000.00. B. The coverage shall be in force from the time of the agreement to the date when all construction work for the Project is completed and accepted by the TOWN. If, however, the policy is a claims made policy, it shall remain in force for a period of six (6) years after completion. Since this insurance is normally written on a year-to-year basis, the ENGINEER shall notify the TOWN should coverage become unavailable. C. The ENGINEER shall, before commencing performance of this Agreement, provide by insurance for the payment of compensation and the furnishing of other benefits in accordance with M.G.L. c.152, as amended, to all its employees and Doc ID: f3151e604f25457688ac289ebe7b46f27397c04c 5 shall continue such insurance in full force and effect during the term of the Agreement. D. The ENGINEER shall carry insurance in a sufficient amount to assure the restoration of any plans, drawings, computations, field notes or other similar data relating to the work covered by this Agreement in the event of loss or destruction until the final fee payment is made or all data are turned over to the TOWN. E. The ENGINEER shall also maintain public liability insurance, including property damage, bodily injury or death, and personal injury and motor vehicle liability insurance against claims for damages because of bodily injury or death of any person or damage to property. F. Evidence of insurance coverage and any and all renewals substantiating that required insurance coverage is in effect shall be filed with the Agreement. Any cancellation of insurance, whether by the insurers or by the insured, shall not be valid unless written notice thereof is given by the party proposing cancellation to the other party and to the TOWN at least fifteen days prior to the intended effective date thereof, which date shall be expressed in said notice. G. Upon request of the ENGINEER, the TOWN reserves the right to modify any conditions of this Article. 12. Notice All notices required to be given hereunder shall be in writing and delivered to, or mailed first class to, the parties' respective addresses stated above. In the event that immediate notice is required, it may be given by telephone or facsimile, but shall, to the extent possible, be followed by notice in writing in the manner set forth above. 13. Termination A. The TOWN shall have the right to terminate this Agreement in the event of a failure of the ENGINEER to comply with the terms of the Agreement. Such termination shall be effective upon seven days' notice to the party in default and the failure within that time of said party to cure its default. B. The TOWN shall also have the right to terminate the Agreement without cause, upon ten (10) days' written notice to the ENGINEER. In the event that the Agreement is terminated pursuant to this subparagraph, the ENGINEER shall be reimbursed in accordance with the Agreement for all work performed up to the termination date. C. By written notice to the TOWN, the ENGINEER may terminate this contract: (1) if the Town, within sixty (60) days following the TOWN’s receipt of the written notice of any default by the TOWN under the contract, shall have failed to remove such default. Upon any such termination by the ENGINEER, all compensation and reimbursement payable to the ENGINEER in accordance with the contract, up to and including the date of termination, shall be paid to the Doc ID: f3151e604f25457688ac289ebe7b46f27397c04c 6 Designer by the Town. No amount shall be allowed for anticipated profit on unperformed services. 14. Miscellaneous A. Assignment: The ENGINEER shall not assign or transfer any of its rights, duties or obligations under this Agreement without the written approval of the TOWN. B. Governing Law: This Agreement shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the law of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have set their hands and seals, the TOWN by its authorized representative who, however, incurs no personal liability by reason of the execution hereof or of anything herein contained, as of the day and year first above written. Date: Horsley Witten Group: By: _________________________________ Name: _______________________________ Type or Print Title: ________________________________ TOWN OF BREWSTER: By: _________________________________ Peter Lombardi, Town Administrator CERTIFICATION OF AVAILABILITY OF FUNDS In accord with General Laws, Chapter 44, §31C, this is to certify that an appropriate in the amount of this contract is available therefor. By: Mimi Bernardo, Finance Director $109,540.00 519856/KOPE/0003 $75,000 authorized May 14, 2022 ATM 001-1222-5840-10 006 Doc ID: f3151e604f25457688ac289ebe7b46f27397c04c Mark Nelson, P.G. Principal MEMORANDUM To: Chris Miller, Director, Brewster Department of Natural Resources From: Mark Nelson Date:September 6, 2022 Re: Revised Scope of Work for 2022-2023 Integrated Water Resource Management Plan (IWRMP) Implementation Related to Coastal Estuaries, Fresh Water Ponds and Stormwater As you requested, I have prepared this revised proposed scope of work for the Horsley Witten Group, Inc.’s (HW) support for the Town of Brewster in implementing the Town’s Integrated Water Resource Management Plan (IWRMP). This scope includes tasks associated with the following three topic areas: 1. Support for the ongoing implementation of the Pleasant Bay watershed permit; 2. Water quality planning for properties near freshwater ponds in Brewster. 3. Education and implementation materials for the new stormwater bylaw. Further information for each of these is provided below. Task 1: Nitrogen Management The bulk of the work relates to implementation of nitrogen management plans for the Pleasant Bay watershed but some of these actions may also apply to the Herring River. The work will be done at the direction of the Town and may change as priorities for implementation change. At this point the following activities are planned: • Continued support for the implementation of the Watershed Permit for Pleasant Bay. This includes attendance at 12 regular meetings with the Pleasant Bay Alliance, and ongoing evaluations of nitrogen removal options for Brewster’s portion of the watershed. • Development of updates to the Watershed Permit Annual Report, providing details on the actions taken by the Town in 2022. As this will be the fifth annual report, HW will also assist the Town in documenting the nitrogen removal actions taken to date and providing updated proposals to meet the Town’s overall nitrogen removal goals. Doc ID: f3151e604f25457688ac289ebe7b46f27397c04c Mr. Chris Miller September 6, 2022 Page 2 of 4 • Continued participation in discussions with the Pleasant Bay Alliance regarding updates to the watershed model for Pleasant Bay and the goals Brewster has for this modeling. HW will continue to analyze the results of new modeling scenarios completed for Pleasant Bay to assess how they affect the nitrogen reduction goals for Brewster. We will also update our calculations for future development, taking into account how the new model scenarios incorporate nitrogen attenuation in the Tar Kiln subwatershed to Pleasant Bay. This information will be helpful for evaluating the Town’s options for managing future development to minimize additional nitrogen loading to Pleasant Bay. • Support for the buildout assessment to be led by the Pleasant Bay Alliance. • Continued evaluation of whether or not Brewster will be eligible to receive funding for the proposed IWRMP implementation projects from the Massachusetts State Revolving Loan fund and from the Cape Cod and Islands Water Protection Fund (CCIWPF). • Review and analysis of the state’s proposed regulation requiring the installation of innovative/alternative septic systems in coastal watersheds where a watershed permit has not been issued. This assessment will also take into account potential benefits to pond water quality of these systems need to be installed. • Review and analysis of updated information on the fertilization practices at the Cape Cod National Golf Course to determine how potential reductions in nitrogen applied at the course will affect the Town’s requirements under the Pleasant Bay Watershed Management Permit. HW will work with the Town and the Golf Course to document how potential nitrogen reductions can be confirmed in the future to ensure compliance under the permit. •Evaluate updates to the existing water quality review bylaw that will incorporate revised nitrogen loading standards for future development to minimize impacts to Pleasant Bay under buildout conditions. HW understands that this work will begin following completion of the Local Comprehensive Plan now under development. • Participation in the first year of meetings held by the new IWRMP Planning Committee that will be established this fall. Our work will include attendance at the meetings and preparation of materials to support the committee discussions. • Presentations to the appropriate Town Boards, potentially including the Select Board, Planning Board, and the Board of Health. This scope includes up to five meetings and the development of any necessary presentation materials. Estimated Cost: $72,450.00 Doc ID: f3151e604f25457688ac289ebe7b46f27397c04c Mr. Chris Miller September 6, 2022 Page 3 of 4 Task 2: Ponds Restoration Planning HW will continue to work at the Town’s direction to continue planning and implementation of projects to restore freshwater ponds in Brewster. This will include: •Outreach to residents living near ponds to discuss options for wastewater management and other strategies to reduce nutrient inputs to ponds. • Initial planning for the proposed pilot program to install innovative/alternative septic systems for up to six homes upgradient of a pond to document the construction process, cost and operation and monitoring requirements. This will be developed to support an application for a State Revolving Fund (SRF) planning grant application in 2023. It will also include the selection of two ponds for the pilot program and an evaluation of other potential nutrient sources impacting the water quality in these two ponds. • Development of the SRF Planning Grant application for submission by the Town. • Coordination with the Town of Orleans to discuss the septic systems in Brewster that are located within three hundred feet of Bakers Pond. The goal will be to discuss and evaluate options for managing these systems to help restore the pond’s water quality. • The Massachusetts Alternative Septic System Test Center (MASSTC) has applied for a grant to develop processes for Towns to use to operate, maintain and monitor alternative septic systems installed to improve water quality. The Town of Brewster has agreed to participate in the project and use it as an opportunity to develop a program to manage alternative septic systems as part of the ongoing plan to restore water quality in freshwater ponds. If the grant is approved, HW will support the Town in planning how a Responsible Management Entity (RME) could be developed and implemented, either by the Town or as part of a regional program. This will include meetings with the Town and MASSTC, evaluation of the extent of septic system management that will be needed in Brewster and an overview of implementation steps and associated regulations the Town will need to implement the recommended RME program. Estimated Cost: $35,000 Task 3: Stormwater Management Bylaw HW will work with Town staff to finalize outreach and education materials to support implementation of the recently adopted stormwater bylaw and associated regulations. Doc ID: f3151e604f25457688ac289ebe7b46f27397c04c Mr. Chris Miller September 6, 2022 Page 4 of 4 Updated materials will be prepared at the direction of the Town, and HW will attend up to two meetings or hearings to present the new materials and answer any questions. Estimated Cost: $3,000.00 Total Estimated Cost: $109,450 HW is prepared to begin this work upon authorization from the Town. HW understands that the Town currently has $75,000 in approved funds to support this contract. We will not exceed that amount until further funding has been approved, most likely at the Fall 2022 Town Meeting. We will coordinate with the Town on which tasks need to be accomplished first with the available funding and which tasks will be started after the additional funding is appropriated. A fee schedule that documents the hourly rates and direct cost amounts that will apply to this proposal is attached for your review. Doc ID: f3151e604f25457688ac289ebe7b46f27397c04c HORSLEY WITTEN GROUP – STANDARD HOURLY RATES - 2022 The following hourly rates for Horsley Witten Group personnel shall apply: These rates will remain in effect through January 1, 2023, after which time HW may adjust hourly rates. Title/Personnel 2022 Rate Principals • Principal Claytor, Estey, Kelly, Nelson, Noble $225/hr • Associate Principal Bernardo, Kitchell, Kuchar, Lee, Price $195/hr Project Managers • Senior Environmental Professional Massa $185/hr • Senior Ecologist III; Senior Emergency Response Manager; Senior Engineer III; Senior Planner III; Senior Scientist III Ball, Baker, Camilli, Ford, Keefer, Simons, West $175/hr • Senior Engineer II; Senior Planner II; Senior Scientist II Daley, Henderson, Kennedy, Relstab $165/hr • Senior Engineer I; Senior Environmental Scientist I; Senior GIS Technician; Senior Landscape Architect I; Senior Planner I; Senior Surveyor I Bernabe, Carlson, Cohen, Davis, Kite, Kroll, Laham, MacKenzie, Moravec, Pereira, Silides, Stanish $145/hr Technical Staff • Engineer III; Landscape Architect III; Planner III; Scientist III; Surveyor III; System Administrator III; GIS/Engineering Technician III Biegert, Glover, Kittila, Laverriere, McWatters, Snider, Wollman $125/hr • Designer II; Engineer II; GIS Specialist II; Landscape Architect II; Planner II; Scientist II Armstrong, Bartlett, Cady, Chatelain, Demanche, Feeney, Gustavesen, Hoffman, Kappler, Lehman, Ogonek, Procton, Queenan, Veary $115/hr • CAD-GIS Technician I; Designer I; Emergency Response Planner I; Engineer I; Graphic Designer I; Landscape Architect I; Planner I; Scientist I Guerzon, King, Knight, Nisbet, Polidor, Rae, Seward-Aponte, Spink- Colborn, Webster $105/hr Admin.Staff • Administrative Assistant Rood, Rowan • Intern $65/hr Survey Crew • 2-Man Survey Crew $160/hr The following rates shall apply to project-related expenses: o Mileage Based on current federal mileage reimbursement o Photocopies (color & B&W) $0.10/page o Plotter Prints $1.50/sq. ft. o Mylar Plotter Prints $2.50/sq. ft. o Equipment Rental: RTK $250/day o Equipment Rental: WQ Probe $150/day o GIS on-line data hosting $50/6 months o Subcontractor Fees Cost + 15% Mark up The client shall be billed for disposable field supplies and/or special equipment if applicable. Other direct expenses incurred will be billed at cost. Doc ID: f3151e604f25457688ac289ebe7b46f27397c04c Horsley Witten -IWRMP HW IWRP FY23.pdf f3151e604f25457688ac289ebe7b46f27397c04c MM / DD / YYYY Signed 09 / 20 / 2022 14:28:51 UTC Sent for signature to Peter Lombardi (plombardi@brewster-ma.gov) and Mimi Bernardo (mbernardo@brewster-ma.gov) from dkalinick@brewster-ma.gov IP: 131.109.131.20 09 / 20 / 2022 16:04:24 UTC Viewed by Peter Lombardi (plombardi@brewster-ma.gov) IP: 131.109.131.20 09 / 20 / 2022 16:04:40 UTC Signed by Peter Lombardi (plombardi@brewster-ma.gov) IP: 131.109.131.20 09 / 21 / 2022 13:19:26 UTC Viewed by Mimi Bernardo (mbernardo@brewster-ma.gov) IP: 131.109.131.20 09 / 21 / 2022 13:20:55 UTC Signed by Mimi Bernardo (mbernardo@brewster-ma.gov) IP: 131.109.131.20 The document has been completed.09 / 21 / 2022 13:20:55 UTC Town of Brewster 2198 Main Street Brewster, MA 02631-1898 Phone: (508) 896-3701 Fax: (508) 896-8089 MEMORANDUM TO: Select Board FROM: Peter Lombardi, Town Administrator RE: Update on Water Quality Project Funding Options and Discussion of Next Steps Relative to Brewster’s Continued Participation in Cape Cod & Islands Water Protection Fund (CCIWPF) DATE: February 25, 2022 Following the joint meeting with the Select Board and Board of Health on January 27 where Mark Nelson from Horsley Witten provided an update on the Town’s water quality initiatives and financing options, I met with our legislative delegation on February 15 at the direction of the Select Board. To recap, Brewster visitors have contributed over $2.6M to the CCIWPF to date – about $1M/year via a 2.75% tax on all lodging. We have not yet received any funding back. At the same time, we have had to appropriate Brewster taxpayer funds (Free Cash) to pay for several water quality initiatives. Per MA Department of Environmental Protection feedback on our anticipated projects (see attached), we only expect to secure about $4M from the CCIWPF toward our $30+M in water quality-related, long- term capital needs. Our delegation’s collective feedback was as follows: -They will not support a Special Act to direct 2.75% (or any other amount) of lodging revenues to a Brewster-specific Water Protection Fund – essentially mirroring the CCIWPF on the local, instead of regional, level. -They suggested we consider adoption of the 3% community impact for short- term rentals. As previously discussed, this local option (MGL Ch 64G Sec 3D) requires a simple majority vote of Town Meeting to adopt. The way the statute is structured, this fee may be imposed on either only professionally managed short-term rentals or on all short-term rentals. This fee is administered and collected by the MA Department of Revenue, just like the CCIWPF. Office of: Select Board Town Administrator Brewster contributes about $1M/year to the CCIWPF. Our traditional lodging & short-term rental revenues (6% tax on each) total approximately $2.3M, about $1.1M from short-term rentals alone. Accordingly, we anticipate collecting at least $500k/year in new revenues if we were to adopt the 3% community impact fee on all short-term rentals, at least 35% of which must be spent on “affordable housing or local infrastructure projects”. Town counsel has opined that all of our proposed upcoming water quality projects would fit within the definition of “local infrastructure”. The local option could take effect as early as July 1, 2022. Practically speaking, we would also need to bring an article to Town Meeting seeking to create a new Water Quality Stabilization Fund to which at least 35%, and potentially 100% (especially since we are already directing 50% of current short-term rental revenues to the Affordable Housing Trust), of these new revenues would be directed. Appropriation from this stabilization fund would require a 2/3 majority vote of Town Meeting. -They expressed support to work with Brewster in the coming months to try to expand our eligibility for State Revolving Fund (SRF) & CCIWPF financing for our projects by coordinating a meeting with relevant MA Department of Environmental Protection and Clean Water Trust officials to explore current state regulations that impact use of these fund sources for innovative/alternative systems on private property. They recognize that this is, or likely will be, a regional issue, not entirely unique to Brewster. Depending on the outcome of this meeting with state officials, they also offered to assist in revisiting current CCIWPF regulations and by-laws to see whether potential changes could be made to those that would expand eligible uses to more closely align with our planned projects, especially those related to innovative/alternative septic systems. As a reminder, MGL Ch 29C Sec 19 requires a 2/3 majority vote of Town Meeting to opt out of the CCIWPF. Members who opt out can, by vote of Town Meeting, opt back in but would not be eligible for funding until Year 3 of their return. It would take several months to work through these potential solutions – certainly well after the deadline for this Spring’s Town Meeting warrant. However, given the significant long-term financial implications of this decision and that state involvement/oversight of pond water quality may evolve over time, I recommend we partner with our legislative delegation to clearly and definitively identify the extent to which we will be able to access SRF and CCIWPF to finance a greater share of our planned water quality initiatives. It is important to note that we do not have any major planned water quality initiatives on our 5-year Capital Improvement Plan in FY23. We currently plan to use $175k in Free Cash for water quality consulting services and initiatives next year. It is also worth noting that the attached Short-Term Rental Revenue Allocation Policy supports directing at least 25% of these existing revenues to Capital Stabilization. For FY23, we have proposed directing $300k (or 40%) of these funds to Capital Stabilization. If approved at that amount, the Capital Stabilization fund balance would be $1.025M. We could create a new Water Quality Stabilization fund at Town Meeting this spring and direct 15% ($112,500) of these existing STR revenues to that new fund for FY23 to help cover most of our planned water quality projects next year. If we were to take that approach, our contribution to the general Capital Stabilization fund in the FY23 operating budget would proportionately decrease to $187,500. Town of Brewster 2198 Main Street Brewster, MA 02631-1898 Phone: (508) 896-3701 Fax: (508) 896-8089 MEMORANDUM TO: Select Board FROM: Peter Lombardi, Town Administrator RE: Update on Cape Cod & Islands Water Protection Fund and Financing Options for Integrated Water Resource Capital Planning DATE: May 6, 2022 Relative to your February 25 meeting where financing options for Brewster’s potential water quality capital projects and continued Town participation in the Cape Cod and Islands Water Protection Fund (CCIWPF) was discussed, I can provide the following updates: We have worked with our legislative delegation to schedule a meeting later this month with pertinent Department of Environmental Protection officials from the State Revolving Fund (SRF) and Clean Water Trust (CWT). Town representatives at this meeting will include Select Board Chair Cindy Bingham, Select Board liaison to the CCIWPF Ned Chatelain, Health Director Amy von Hone, Natural Resources Director Chris Miller, the Town’s long-time water quality consultant at Horsley Witten Mark Nelson, and myself. We appreciate our legislators’ assistance in facilitating this follow-up conversation to our initial exchange with state officials last summer. Our primary goal is to understand the extent to which we may be able to meet SRF eligibility requirements for innovative/alternative (I/A) septic systems on private property around our ponds in order to access CCIWPF subsidies for any such future work. The CCIWPF Executive Committee held a meeting on March 17 where recent Brewster discussions about our continued participation in the CCIWPF were addressed. The CCIWPF Executive Committee voted to authorize Cape Cod Commission staff to provide technical assistance to Brewster and perhaps other CCIWPF members regarding SRF eligibility for I/A systems. Town staff have subsequently met with Commission staff to start developing a scope of work for this project. We just received their draft scope today and will refine it in the coming weeks. Our understanding is that this technical assistance must ultimately be reviewed and approved by the full CCIWPF Board, which will likely be meeting in the next month or so – when this year’s SRF Intended Use Plan is Office of: Select Board Town Administrator finalized and released. Once this technical assistance is approved, Commission staff has indicated that it will likely take approximately 6 months to complete. Last week, Mark Nelson participated in a panel webinar organized by the New England Water Environment Association with state officials from DEP and CWT to discuss funding and financing I/A systems. The Town is seeking Town Meeting approval next week to create a new Water Quality Capital Stabilization Fund. The FY23 Town budget proposes to appropriate $112,500 to this new fund – 15% of our projected FY23 short-term rental revenues. Our 5-Year Capital Improvement Plan currently calls for $175k in spending on water quality initiatives in FY23, including a funding for a comprehensive update to our Town-wide pond water quality data and analysis. Town officials have been working with the Brewster Ponds Coalition to co-host their annual ponds summit this year. The event will be held on Friday June 17 from 9AM to noon at the Brewster Baptist Church. The summit will include a panel discussion of subject-matter experts who will broadly cover septic system impacts on pond water quality, potential solutions, and financing considerations. Details to follow shortly. The EPA recently announced a major new grant program for the Southeast New England Program (SNEP) to pilot the creation of Responsible Management Entities (financing and administrative mechanism) for I/A systems. We are investigating partnering with the Mass Septic System Test Center and a few other Cape towns to collaborate on a joint grant application. The Town also submitted a letter of interest late last month for another SNEP grant, seeking approximately $150k to install a new I/A system at Captain’s Golf course (which is listed on our 5-Year Capital Improvement Plan). I have been in repeated contact with relevant state officials at the Department of Revenue seeking data to refine our revenue estimate if we were to adopt the short-term rental community impact fee under MGL Ch 64G Sec3D. I can relay that 19 other MA towns have adopted this local option to date and that about $1.4M has been collected through the first three quarters of FY22 in those towns from this fee (a majority of which is from Boston). Unfortunately, the state has not yet been able to produce sufficient data to accurately project Brewster revenues. While it will certainly be less than the initial $500k we had estimated, it is not yet possible to provide a reliable projection. We will continue to work on this issue as having a clear sense of the extent to which this fee could be relied on as an alternative means to fund our water quality needs will be critical to future decision making. Town of Brewster 2198 Main Street Brewster, MA 02631-1898 Phone: (508) 896-3701 Fax: (508) 896-8089 MEMORANDUM TO: Select Board FROM: Peter Lombardi, Town Administrator RE: Update on Financing Options for Integrated Water Resource Capital Planning DATE: June 10, 2022 Following up on our discussion last month, here are the latest updates on water quality planning: The CCIWPF Board approved use of CCIWPF funds to provide technical assistance from Cape Cod Commission staff to Brewster (and other towns as appropriate) to determine State Revolving Fund eligibility of various innovation/alternative septic and other non-traditional wastewater projects – see attached scope of services. This project is expected to take up to six months to complete and should clarify the feasibility of various financing solutions for Brewster’s planned projects, including whether they will be eligible for CCIWPF subsidies. Earlier this spring, the EPA announced a major new grant program ($1+M per project) for the Southeast New England Program (SNEP) to pilot the creation of Responsible Management Entities (financing and administrative mechanism) for I/A systems. The Mass Septic System Test Center plans to apply. We have met with County officials about their proposal and plan to submit a letter of support with their application. Barnstable County officials are considering numerous changes to the existing Septic Loan program, including potentially reducing or eliminating interest charges and/or providing loan forgiveness for certain income-eligible homeowners – see attached for details. As currently constituted, residents seeking to upgrade to I/A technology must have a failed system to be eligible for this program. However, the newly proposed DEP Title V regulations, perhaps in concert with amended local regulations, may expand eligibility for these septic upgrades. We are meeting with County and Commission staff next month to Office of: Select Board Town Administrator discuss how these three projects (CCIWPF TA, County RME grant, and County Septic Loan Program changes) may interact. The CCIWPF Board voted to appropriate $27M in CCIWPF subsides to a total of eight SRF eligible projects included in the 2022 Intended Use Plan. Actual subsidies in the first two years of the fund have well exceeded actuarial projections. Absent the proposed major infusion of state funding outlined below, the current model (25% subsidy over 4 years) would need to be revisited by next year. A presentation to this effect was made to the CCIWPF earlier this spring. This merits continued attention if state funds do not materialize for whatever reason. As I relayed last week, DEP announced that it plans to propose changes to Title V regs that would apply to nitrogen sensitive watersheds on Cape, requiring either septic systems to be upgraded to I/A technology in 5 years or the Town to enter into shared 20-year wastewater permits similar to Pleasant Bay. There is no clear direction yet on how this would impact our Pleasant Bay Watershed Permit, which is viewed as a model by DEP. As I mentioned, the proposed new requirements would impact Brewster’s contributions to the Herring River watershed, including properties on Long Pond, Sheep Pond, and Seymour Pond. Governor Baker has included $200M in state funding in his proposed FY22 supplemental budget, pending legislative approval, to help cover some implementation costs. We have been told that these funds, if approved, would be directed to a combination of the CCIWPF & Barnstable County Septic Loan Program. We are working with DEP to schedule a meeting with them next month to provide initial feedback before they draft these updated regulations. They will be meeting with Town officials across the Cape over the summer seeking their input. I expect that the previously planned meeting with relevant state officials and our legislative delegation will occur after the Commission completes its technical assistance work and DEP develops draft updated Title V regulations. On a related note, the Town will be co-hosting the Brewster Ponds Coalition’s annual ponds summit on Friday June 17 from 9AM to noon at the Brewster Baptist Church. The summit will include a panel discussion of subject-matter experts who will address septic system impacts on pond water quality, potential solutions, and financing considerations. Based on these latest developments, I recommend that the Board vote to postpone decisions on the Town’s continued participation in the CCIWPF until further notice. Charles D. Baker Governor Karyn E. Polito Lieutenant Governor Bethany A. Card Secretary Martin Suuberg Commissioner This information is available in alternate format. Contact Glynis Bugg at 617-348-4040. TTY# MassRelay Service 1-800-439-2370 MassDEP Website: www.mass.gov/dep Printed on Recycled Paper Fact Sheet MassDEP Regulatory Strategy for Estuaries Impaired by Nitrogen June 1, 2022 1. Nitrogen Sensitive Area Designations: A primary source of nitrogen contamination of coastal estuaries in Southeastern Massachusetts and Cape Cod and the Islands are on-site septic systems. MassDEP, in conjunction with local Boards of Health, regulates these systems through “Title 5” regulations, 310 CMR 15.00. To ensure the Title 5 regulations are protective of the environment, particularly in relation to the impact of nitrogen discharges on surface water quality, MassDEP is proposing the following revisions to Title 5: Establish New Nitrogen Sensitive Areas (NSAs) To more effectively address nitrogen impacting estuaries, MassDEP is proposing to establish new “Natural Resource Area” NSAs for: • any watershed to an embayment or sub-embayment that is the subject of a Nitrogen Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) approved by the EPA pursuant to the federal Clean Water Act and an Area-Wide Water Quality Management Plan pursuant to Section 208 of the Clean Water Act addressing nitrogen pollution: o A “TMDL” is an EPA-approved calculation of the maximum amount of a pollutant allowed to enter a waterbody so that the waterbody will meet and continue to meet water quality standards for that particular pollutant. A TMDL determines a pollutant reduction target and allocates load reductions necessary to the sources of the pollutant. o All Cape Cod communities are subject to the “208 Plan” approved by EPA in 2015. o There are currently 30 watersheds across Cape Cod with EPA-approved nitrogen TMDLs. 2 o For these watersheds, the NSA designation is effective on the effective date of the final regulations. • any watershed to an embayment or sub-embayment that is the subject to an EPA-approved TMDL or determined to be nitrogen sensitive by the Department based on scientific evaluation and adopted through a public process involving public notice, including the scientific and regulatory rational for the designation, and a 60-day public comment period. o For these watersheds, the NSA designation is effective upon completion of the public process and MassDEP’s issuance of the final designation. New Requirements for Natural Resource Area NSAs MassDEP is proposing new requirements for these new NSAs to more effectively address the specific problems related to septic systems contaminating coastal estuaries. • Unless a community is the subject of a Watershed Permit described below, any system serving a new construction, or an existing facility must incorporate Best Available Nitrogen Reducing Technology within five years of the effective date of the NSA designation of the watershed in which they are located. • Best Available Nitrogen Reducing Technology is an alternative system certified by MassDEP for general use pursuant to Title 5 which has the lowest effluent Total Nitrogen performance value. An alternative system granted provisional or pilot approval by MassDEP may also be utilized as long as such system has a Total Nitrogen performance value less than or equal to the lowest alternative system certified by the Department for general use. Exemption from Enhanced Treatment Requirements in Watersheds with Watershed Permits While the enhanced treatment requirements for septic systems will result in significant reductions in nitrogen pollution, they may not be the most effective and efficient way to restore the impacted estuaries and achieve established water quality goals. Therefore, MassDEP is also proposing a second, concurrent regulatory revision to formally establish a “watershed permit process.” If communities take advantage of this approach, and obtain a watershed permit that covers an area that would be subject to new “Nitrogen Sensitive Area” regulations, the above Title 5 NSA requirements would not become effective for that area. However, if a Watershed Permit is terminated by the permittee or revoked by MassDEP, new systems installed after the date of termination/revocation would have to install Best Available Nitrogen Reducing Technology and existing systems would have to install such technology within five years from the effective date of the new NSA regulations or two years of the date of termination/revocation, whichever is longer. 2. Watershed Permit Regulations: The Watershed Permitting regulations are a new, innovative approach to provide communities the opportunity to develop and implement the most effective 3 and efficient solutions to addressing water quality challenges. This approach provides the opportunity for communities to employ a greater range of solutions to address their water quality needs, including alternative or innovative approaches. The Watershed Permit is a 20- year permit instead of the traditional five-year permit which utilizes an adaptive management approach, requiring permittees to monitor, evaluate and report results, and adjust and modify the strategies and practices as needed to address conditions that are causing the water quality impairments. Watershed Management Plan The Watershed Permit is based on a “Watershed Management Plan” a long-term plan to address an existing water quality impairment to restore and protect water quality. The Watershed Management Plan must be approved by town meetings of each respective watershed permit applicant, and is based on a Comprehensive or Targeted Watershed Management Plan. The Plan provides a schedule and description of actions to restore the waterbody to applicable Water Quality Standards in accordance with any applicable TMDL and/or any other applicable scientific evaluation, such as the Massachusetts Estuaries Project (MEP) report. For watersheds where a TMDL has been established, the Watershed Management Plan must achieve compliance with the Water Quality Standards required by the TMDL and demonstrate that at a minimum, 75% of the necessary pollutant reduction levels will be achieved within 20 years, unless MassDEP determines an alternative schedule is appropriate based on watershed-specific issues. Watershed Permit Application • Any Local Government Unit or Regional Local Government Unit can file for a watershed permit. Multiple local government units that share a watershed or sub-watershed may apply jointly for a Watershed Permit, provided they have entered into an enforceable agreement (e.g., Intermunicipal Agreement) that confirms each permittee’s percentage share of the aggregate pollutant removal responsibility and provides a framework to coordinate resource management decision-making and arrangements relating to the receipt and expenditure of funds for implementation. • The Watershed Permit authorizes work needed to implement the Permittee’s mitigation strategy for the watershed or sub-watershed, therefore the Application must include the Watershed Management Plan for the watershed or sub-watershed including: o maps depicting the regulated area (watershed boundary) and a narrative describing the area proposed to be covered under a Watershed Permit; o a description of the current and historic water quality conditions, including short- (daily/seasonal) and long- (annual) term variability, proposed sentinel sampling locations within the watershed/stations, sampling frequency, parameters and sampling technique (e.g., grab/observation); 4 o the earlier planning approaches taken prior to filing the application, including any related findings and recommendations; o the types, locations, and timing of any on-going and proposed TMDL or alternative TMDL implementation activities within the watershed or sub-watershed proposed for coverage; o a table identifying the nitrogen load that the area proposed for coverage under the watershed permit contributes to the surface waters of the watershed for the past 10 years and projected loads for the following 10 and depicting the necessary load reductions (removal requirements) within the watershed to meet the TMDL or TMDLs and a concise description of the means of achieving those specified reductions during the term of the permit; o the Conventional Control Technologies and Alternative Control Approaches or Technologies selected for pollutant load reductions, the area covered by these approaches, and identification of the permittee who will be responsible for implementing each activity; o the estimated load reductions needed to meet the threshold concentration(s) at the sentinel station(s) for each of the selected Conventional Control Technologies and Alternative Control Approaches or Technologies; o the implementation schedule for each Alternative Control Approach or Technology proposed, including a timeframe for demonstration, testing, and acceptance or abandonment of such approaches or technologies; o the Core Sewer Area and the service areas prioritized for wastewater collection and treatment after accounting for implementation of the selected Alternative Control Approaches and Technologies; o if Alternative Control Approaches and Technologies are proposed, a contingency plan for a back-up Conventional Control Technology in the event that the Alternative Control Approaches and Technologies selected do not function as predicted; o the proposed approach to control 100% of all future pollutant loads to ensure that loads will always stay below the applicable threshold levels cost estimates for the infrastructure and programs associated with the proposed actions, if available; o an implementation schedule, not to exceed 20 years, currently envisioned by the applicant(s), including a designated set of activities that will occur in the first 5-year block of time, and the results of which will enable the permittee to revise the implementation plans for the next 5-year period as necessary to meet load reduction requirements as specified. Standard Watershed Permit Provisions • The Department shall not issue a Watershed Permit if the Watershed Management Plan does not provide for achievement of the Surface Water Quality standards applicable to the 5 water bodies covered by the permit or if the permit does not provide for reasonable progress in achievement of the TMDL load reductions necessary to meet water quality standards. • Consistent with the Watershed Management Plan, the permit shall require that 75% of the necessary pollutant reduction levels will be achieved within 20 years, unless MassDEP determines an alternative schedule is appropriate based on watershed-specific issues. • The proposed activities, implementation schedule for such activities, and facilities set forth in the applicant’s Watershed Management Plan shall be enforceable requirements, incorporated in a Watershed Permit. • Subject to Department approval, a permittee is granted pollutant reduction credit for Alternative Control Approaches and Technologies only if the permittee implements and maintains such approaches and/or technologies in accordance with the terms and conditions of the Watershed Permit. • The permittee shall provide a Contingency Plan in its Watershed Management Plan that relies on Conventional Control Technologies to achieve the target threshold concentrations identified in the Watershed Management Plan. • The permittee shall monitor water quality in accordance with the permittee’s monitoring plan and report the results in the Annual Reports required by the Watershed Permit. • The Permit requires annual reporting, with 5-Year Reports evaluating results of program and proposed adjustments through adaptive management. • Any prospective changes to the Watershed Management Plan or the approved implementation schedule shall be identified in the Annual Reports required by the Watershed Permit. Any such proposed changes to the Watershed Management Plan shall be subject to the Department’s review and approval. • For a permittee(s) to terminate permit coverage, they must provide public notice and hold a public meeting. • Any permits issued by the Department that comprise a component of the implementation activities or are applicable to the pollutant discharges in the watershed shall be incorporated by reference into the Watershed Permit. Watershed Permit Process • The applicant shall publish public notice of the Watershed Permit proceeding in the MEPA Environmental Monitor and in a newspaper circulated within the area that will be affected by the Watershed Permit. The Department will post the notice on the Department’s webpage. • Public notice will afford a comment period of at least 60 days. • A public hearing will be held if requested by the applicant, or if the Department determines a public hearing to be in the public interest. 6 • After the conclusion of the 60-day public comment period, the Department may issue or deny a final Watershed Permit. o If no comments objecting to the issuance or terms of the Watershed Permit were received by the Department during the public comment period, then the Watershed Permit shall take effect upon issuance. o If comments objecting to the issuance or the terms and conditions of the Watershed Permit were received by the Department during the public comment period, then the final Watershed Permit shall become effective 21 days after issuance, unless a request for an adjudicatory hearing is timely filed. o During the 21-day period following issuance of the Watershed Permit or determination to deny, any person aggrieved by the decision may file a request for an adjudicatory hearing with the Department. Watershed Permit Modification/Suspension/Revocation • The Department may propose and determine to modify, suspend or revoke any Watershed Permit, in whole or in part, for cause including, but not limited to, violation of any permit, obtaining a permit by misrepresentation, or failure to disclose fully all relevant facts or any change in or discovery of conditions that calls for reduction or discontinuance of the authorized discharge or activity. • The Department shall process a Watershed Permit modification, suspension or revocation in the same manner as an application for a Watershed Permit; provided, however, that the Department may revise a schedule in a Watershed Permit at the request of a permittee if the Department determines that good and valid cause, for which the permittee is not at fault, exists for such revision, and in such cases the provision for public notice and hearing shall not apply. • Any one or more of the permittees may terminate coverage under this Permit by providing written notice to the Department at least 60 days in advance of the date such termination is to take effect. Such notice will include public notice of a public hearing to be held at least 30 days prior to the termination date. Such notice will be published in the MEPA Environmental Monitor and in a newspaper circulated within the area affected by the Watershed Permit at least 30 days prior to the hearing. Meeting Agenda Introductions- All Meeting Objectives/ Milestones- Millie Garcia-Serrano, MassDEP SERO Regional Director Presentation of Proposed Regulatory Framework- Marybeth Chubb, MassDEP o Nitrogen Sensitive Area (NSA) Designation Establishing New Natural Resource Area NSA Requirements and Exemptions Watershed Permitting Watershed Management Plan Watershed Permit Application, Permitting, Permit Modification/ Suspension/ Revocation Watershed Management Plan Update- Brewster o CWMP Update o Anticipated needs for Plan completion/ update Data gaps General Discussion/ Opportunity for feedback on proposed regulatory strategy- Marybeth Chubb, MassDEP/ Brewster Funding Opportunities - Maria Pinaud/ Gerard Martin, MassDEP o SRF Program o Other Programs (SNEP, USDA) Next Steps- Millie Garcia-Serrano, MassDEP Proposed Regulatory Framework Background: Stakeholder Group NSA Subcommittee met on September 3, 2020, February 23, 2021, & June 3, 2022 to discuss potential changes to Nitrogen Sensitive Area (NSA) provisions of Title 5 Topics discussed: Expansion of definition of NSA Defining how these areas might be determined New nitrogen requirements for certain NSA areas Compliance options Implementation schedule for new requirements Proposed Regulatory Framework (cont'd) Current Title 5 regulations Defines 'Drinking Water Protection' Nitrogen Sensitive Areas as: Zone IIs and Interim Wellhead Protection Areas (IWPAs), and Facilities that utilize both on-site septic systems and non-public drinking water supply wells Allows designation of nitrogen sensitive embayments through parallel regulatory change processes Imposes loading restrictions (440 gpd/acre) for both Proposed Regulatory Framework (cont'd) Proposed Regulatory Framework for Designation of Nitrogen Sensitive Areas: •Maintains the Drinking Water Protection NSAs •Establishes new designation of Natural Resource Area NSAs Proposed Regulatory Framework (cont'd) Natural Resource Area NSAs: 1) Any watershed to an embayment or sub-embayment that is the subject of a Nitrogen Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) approved by the USEPA pursuant to the federal Clean Water Act and an Area Wide Water Quality Management Plan pursuant to Section 208 of the Clean Water Act addressing nitrogen pollution Proposed Regulatory Framework (cont'd) Natural Resource Area NSAs: A “TMDL” is an EPA-approved calculation of the maximum amount of a pollutant allowed to enter a waterbody so that the waterbody will meet and continue to meet water quality standards for that particular pollutant. A TMDL determines a pollutant reduction target and allocates load reductions necessary to the sources of the pollutant All Cape Cod communities are subject to the “208 Plan” approved by EPA in 2015 There are currently 30 watersheds across Cape Cod with EPA-approved nitrogen TMDLs For these watersheds, the NSA designation is effective on the effective date of the final regulations. Proposed Regulatory Framework (cont'd) Natural Resource Area NSAs: 2) Any watershed to an embayment or sub embayment that is the subject of an EPA approved TMDL or determined to be nitrogen sensitive by the Department based on scientific evaluation and adopted through a public process involving public notice, including the scientific and regulatory rational for the designation, and a 60-day public comment period. For these watersheds, the NSA designation is effective upon completion of the public process and MassDEP’s issuance of the final NSA designation. Proposed Regulatory Framework (cont'd) Requirements for Natural Resource Area NSAs: Unless a community is the subject of a Watershed Permit, any system serving new construction or an existing facility must incorporate Best Available Nitrogen Reducing Technology within five (5) years of the effective date of the NSA designation of the watershed in which they are located TMDL + 208 plan = NSA effective date of regulation promulgation TMDL or as determined + Public Process = NSA effective date of designation Proposed Regulatory Framework (cont'd) Requirements for Natural Resource Area NSAs: Best Available Nitrogen Reducing Technology is an alternative system certified by MassDEP for general use pursuant to Title 5 which has the lowest effluent Total Nitrogen performance value. An alternative system granted provisional or pilot approval by MassDEP may also be utilized as long as such system has a Total Nitrogen performance value less than or equal to the lowest alternative system certified by the Department for general use. Proposed Regulatory Framework (cont'd) Exemption from Enhanced Treatment Requirements for Natural Resource Area NSAs: Watersheds with Watershed Permits: If communities obtain a watershed permit that covers an area that would be subject to new “NSA” regulations, the Title 5 NSA requirements would not become effective for that area If a Watershed Permit is terminated by the permittee or revoked by MassDEP: New systems installed after the date of termination/revocation would have to install Best Available Nitrogen Reducing Technology and existing systems would have to install such technology within 5 years from the effective date of the new NSA regulations or 2 years of the date of termination/revocation, whichever is longer Proposed Regulatory Framework (cont'd) Watershed Permit: 20-year permit instead of the traditional five-year permit Provide communities the opportunity to employ a greater range of solutions to address their water quality needs, including alternative or innovative approaches Utilizes an adaptive management approach, requiring permittees to monitor, evaluate and report results, and adjust and modify the strategies and practices as needed to address conditions that are causing the water quality impairments Watershed Permit is based on a “Watershed Management Plan” Proposed Regulatory Framework (cont'd) Watershed Management Plan: A long-term plan to address an existing water quality impairment to restore and protect water quality. Based on a Comprehensive or Targeted Watershed Management Plan Approved by town meetings of each respective watershed permit applicant For watersheds where a TMDL has been established, the Watershed Management Plan must achieve compliance with the Water Quality Standards required by the TMDL and demonstrate that at a minimum, 75% of the necessary pollutant reduction levels will be achieved within 20 years, unless MassDEP determines an alternative schedule is appropriate based on watershed-specific issues Proposed Regulatory Framework (cont'd) Watershed Permit Applicant: Local Government Unit, Regional Local Government Unit Multiple local government units that share a watershed or sub-watershed may apply jointly for a Watershed Permit, provided they have entered into an enforceable agreement (e.g., Intermunicipal Agreement) Agreement confirms each permittee’s percentage share of the aggregate pollutant removal responsibility and provides a framework to coordinate resource management decision-making and arrangements relating to the receipt and expenditure of funds for implementation Proposed Regulatory Framework (cont'd) Watershed Permit Application: Estimated load reductions needed to meet the threshold concentration(s) at the sentinel station(s) for each of the selected Conventional Control Technologies and Alternative Control Approaches or Technologies An implementation schedule, not to exceed 20 years, currently envisioned by the applicant(s), including a designated set of activities that will occur in the first 5-year block of time, and the results of which will enable the permittee to revise the implementation plans for the next 5-year period as necessary to meet load reduction requirements as specified Core Sewer Area and the service areas prioritized for wastewater collection and treatment after accounting for implementation of the selected Alternative Control Approaches and Technologies Proposed Regulatory Framework (cont'd) Watershed Permit Application: If Alternative Control Approaches and Technologies are proposed, a contingency plan for a back-up Conventional Control Technology will be provided in the event that the Alternative Control Approaches and Technologies selected do not function as predicted The proposed approach to control 100% of all future pollutant loads to ensure that loads will always stay below the applicable threshold levels Cost estimates for the infrastructure and programs associated with the proposed actions, if available Proposed Regulatory Framework (cont'd) Standard Watershed Permit Provisions: The proposed activities, implementation schedule for such activities, and facilities set forth in the applicant’s Watershed Management Plan shall be enforceable requirements, incorporated in a Watershed Permit Annual report submittal 5- year evaluation and review Public notice requirement and public meeting requirement for a permittee(s) to terminate permit coverage Any permits issued by the Department that comprise a component of the implementation activities or are applicable to the pollutant discharges in the watershed shall be incorporated by reference into the Watershed Permit (i.e., Groundwater Discharge Permit) Proposed Regulatory Framework (cont'd) Watershed Permit Issuance Process: Public notice of the Watershed Permit proceeding in the MEPA Environmental Monitor and in a newspaper circulated within the area that will be affected by the Watershed Permit. The Department will post the notice on the Department’s webpage Comment period of at least 60 days A public hearing will be held if requested by the applicant, or if the Department determines a public hearing to be in the public interest Proposed Regulatory Framework (cont'd) Watershed Permit Modification/Suspension/Revocation: By the Department for violation of any permit, obtaining a permit by misrepresentation, or failure to disclose fully all relevant facts or any change in or discovery of conditions that calls for reduction or discontinuance of the authorized discharge or activity The Department shall process a Watershed Permit modification, suspension or revocation in the same manner as an application for a Watershed Permit The Department may revise a schedule in a Watershed Permit at the request of a permittee if the Department determines that good and valid cause, for which the permittee is not at fault, exists for such revision, and in such cases the provision for public notice and hearing shall not apply Proposed Regulatory Framework (cont'd) Watershed Permit Termination: Any one or more of the permittees may terminate coverage under this Permit by providing written notice to the Department at least sixty (60) days in advance of the date such termination is to take effect Such notice will include public notice of a public hearing to be held at least thirty (30) days prior to the termination date Such notice will be published in the Environmental Monitor and in a newspaper circulated within the area affected by the Watershed Permit at least thirty (30) days prior to the hearing Upon termination of coverage, the Best Available Nitrogen Reducing Technology requirement applies to the individual systems in the NSA Proposed Regulatory Framework: Brewster Yes! Brewster is on Cape Cod. All 15 Cape Cod Towns are within an area with an EPA approved and EEA certified 208 Plan. Yes! Brewster contributes nitrogen load to two (2) shared watersheds that have an EPA approved Nitrogen TMDL (Herring River and Pleasant Bay) . Unless the Town obtains a Watershed Permit for a specific Watershed, all properties with septic systems will have to upgrade their Title 5 system with a Best Available Nitrogen Reducing Technology Septic System in 5 years from promulgation of the regulations. Does Brewster have a watershed that drains to an estuary with an EPA approved Nitrogen TMDL? Is Brewster within an area that has an EPA approved and EEA certified 208 Plan? What does Natural Resources Area NSA designation mean for The Town of Brewster? Will Brewster have automatic Natural Resource Area NSA designations? Yes! How does the proposed regulatory framework impact the Town of Brewster? See Below! Watershed Management Plan Update Brewster Watersheds per CCC 2021 Report General Discussion/ Feedback on Proposed Strategy SRF’s Community Septic Management Program (CSMP) Loan Model The Massachusetts Clean Water Trust (Trust) dedicates $5 million a year to offer 2%interest rate loans to communities to fund their CSMP programs that provide loans to homeowners to replace their failed septic systems. Over the past 5 years the CSMP has made 29 loans totaling $14.2 million at an average loan amount of $450,000. Additionally, the CWSRF has financed Barnstable County’s septic loan program, which now operates as itsown revolving fund. •The program operates on a rolling application basis and communities apply for financing when there is demand from homeowners. •Homeowners apply to the town for financing and the town draws down funds as needed from the Trust. •The loan to the community is secured with a general obligation pledge of the communities and receives the traditional debt authorization at the local level. •The loan to the homeowner is secured with a betterment agreement between the community and the homeowner, to which the Trust is not a party. •Since the loan to the homeowner is secured with a betterment agreement, Massachusetts General Law governs that agreement and the interest rates that can be charged. •The interest charged by the community to the homeowner can be used to cover administrative expenses and to make new loans, which Barnstable County and others have done. •The draws made against the loan by the community operate under the Trust’s interim loan program and accrue no interest and no fees. •In most instances, the loan is put into repayment within two years or sooner if all the funds have been drawn or if the community decides they are finished with the program. The Trust and MassDEP look forward to working with all Cape towns in developing solutions that work for the towns and do so at the lowest cost possible.25 About the Program State Revolving Fund Loan Process 26THE MASSACHUSETTS CLEAN WATER TRUST AND MASSDEP The SRF financing process can take up to two years, depending on the community and project, from the initial project proposal to funding being disbursed. MassDEP staff will provide assistance to the community from application submission to project completion. MassDEP Next Steps Communication to Towns and Stakeholders June 1, 2022, Regulatory Revisions Announcement Letter & Fact Sheet Scheduling of MassDEP/ Town meetings- ongoing Development of informational Webpage 310 CMR 15.000: Septic Systems ("Title 5") | Mass.gov Table of Contents – Strategy for Nitrogen Impaired Estuaries Development of Regulatory Revision- ongoing Development of Funding Guidance- ongoing Comments on Proposed Framework Email: Marybeth.Chubb@mass.gov Communication with Towns and Stakeholders Cape/Islands/Southeastern MA Technical One-on-One Meeting Scheduling Email: Millie.Garcia-Serrano@mass.gov Email: Jennifer.Viveiros@mass.gov Information on Funding Email: Maria.Pinaud@mass.gov Points of Contact MassDEP Contacts Southeast Regional Office: Millie Garcia-Serrano, Millie.Garcia-Serrano@mass.gov Gerard Martin, Gerard.Martin@mass.gov Jennifer Viveiros, Jennifer.Viveiros@mass.gov Andrew Osei, Andrew.Osei@mass.gov Ian Jarvis, Ian.Jarvis@mass.gov Boston Office: Kathleen Baskin, Kathleen.Baskin@mass.gov Lealdon Langley, Lealdon.Langley@mass.gov Marybeth Chubb, Marybeth.Chubb@mass.gov Maria Pinaud, Maria.Pinaud@mass.gov Thank you! Pond Characteristics Pond watershed delineations and bathymetry Surrounding land cover and land use summaries Protected open space in pond buffer ABOUT THE FRESHWATER INITIATIVE Through this initiative, the Cape Cod Commission and its partners will complete an analysis of available pond monitoring data, assess the overall health of Cape Cod’s ponds, and identify regional trends in water quality. This will provide the basis for a comprehensive planning process that engages stakeholders to define a path forward for improving pond water quality across the region. CAPE COD’S FRESHWATER PONDS Cape Cod’s 890 freshwater ponds cover nearly 11,000 acres. These ponds are extremely fragile. Human activity and development have led to excessive inputs of nutrients (nitrogen and phosphorous) to ponds from septic systems, fertilizers, and stormwater runoff. The buildup of nutrients has led to eutrophication and a proliferation of algal blooms that threaten the health and safety of humans, pets, wildlife, and aquatic life. In keeping with the work done to protect the region’s drinking water supplies and coastal ecosystems, the community needs to identify strategies to protect and restore these critical resources. 890 Freshwater ponds on Cape Cod Interactive Pond Atlas ATLAS ELEMENTS Residential/ Commercial Area Recreation Area Protected Area Updates to the 2003 Pond and Lake Atlas include the Pond Viewer, an interactive, GIS-based online viewer that will allow users to access and explore information about freshwater resources. Access Point Pond JAN 2022 CAPE COD Freshwater Initiative The proposed project is a science-based, information-driven planning process that will engage stakeholders and enable action to protect and restore Cape Cod’s freshwater ponds. CAPE COD FRESHWATER INITIATIVE Project Workplan MONITORING PROGRAM Expanding pond monitoring to collect data necessary to support management decisions and track performance ECONOMIC ANALYSIS Quantifying the costs and benefits of pond management strategies, including the cost of no action and the impacts of degraded freshwater quality on the regional economy LEGAL AND JURISDICTIONAL ANALYSIS Reviewing federal and state laws relative to public and private interests in and around freshwater ponds, and identifying opportunities for local and regional action ONGOING DATA MANAGEMENT AND ANALYSIS Managing and maintaining accessible pond monitoring datasets and providing on- demand trend analyses through a web- based interface DATA MANAGEMENT AND ANALYSIS Developing freshwater monitoring database, processing scripts for trend analyses, and accessible user interface REMOTE SENSING Investigating the use of satellite-derived imagery and existing pond water quality data to quantify changes in pond characteristics PHYSICAL CHARACTERISTICS Assessing, through the use of GIS and other data sources, characteristics that may contribute to changes in water quality, and determining potential internal and external drivers of water quality degradation PONDS AND LAKES ATLAS UPDATE Completing an update to the 2003 Cape Cod Ponds and Lakes Atlas to serve as a resource for updated pond information and provide the basis for the Freshwater Initiative STRATEGIES DATABASE Developing a pond-specific strategies database that includes a range of technologies, regulatory and voluntary options, and management approaches for protecting and restoring pond water quality ENGAGEMENT AND OUTREACH Engaging stakeholders to develop a framework for identifying and implementing pond management strategies JAN 2022 Select Board Meeting 9.26.22 1 Agenda Item #14- For Your Information (FYIs) 1.Housing Coordinator Update- August 2022 2.Regional Housing Strategy Handout 3.Wing Island Boardwalk Project a.APCC Comments b.Resident Emails 4.Millstone Road Right of Way Process outline 5.Cape Cod Regional Transit Authority September Administrator’s Report 6.Library Funding Letter from the Town of Amherst 7.MassPRIM Pension Reserves Investment August Reports 8.Appointment to Brewster Bicycle and Pedestrian Committee – Michelle Bitzer Brewster Housing Coordinator Update August 2022 Jill Scalise Ongoing Activities/ Projects 1. Community Outreach and Education (Housing Production Plan (HPP) Strategy #14) Responded to email and phone requests for information and assistance, 68 total requests for housing information (38) or assistance (30). 2. Brewster Affordable Housing Trust (BAHT) (HPP assorted strategies, Select Board (SB) Strategic Plan H-1) Trust met & addressed items throughout update. Worked on the Housing Trust Guidelines, draft sent to legal counsel for review. Working with the Housing Partnership, a Community Housing Forum is scheduled for Thursday October 27th 5-6:30PM at Brewster Ladies Library. 3. Community Housing Parcel off Millstone (SB Strategic Plan H-4, HPP Strategies #12 & 16) The Select Board approved and executed a Land Disposition Agreement for the Millstone parcel with Preservation of Affordable Housing (POAH) & Housing Assistance Corporation (HAC). The Select Board also sent a letter of support for POAH & HAC’s Millstone Community Rental Housing Project Eligibility Application for the Low-Income Housing Tax Credit program. 4. Redevelop Existing Properties for Affordable Housing (HPP Strategy #5) Serenity at Brewster (55+ rental housing, 27 affordable units): Tours were available and the Town and DHCD were thanked for their efforts during a well-attended grand opening ceremony. Leasing began for both market rate and affordable units. Had an informative tour of housing on the Bay Parcel by Ed Barber and presented to the Bay Parcel Committee Meeting about the Town Housing Plan as well as a preliminary exploration of potential housing uses on the Bay Parcel. 5. Comprehensive Permit Projects (HPP Strategy #16) Brewster Woods (30 affordable rental units): Affordable housing lottery was held August 2nd with 125 eligible applications from a total pool of 241 households. Construction delays continue. Habitat for Humanity Red Top Road (2 affordable homes): Regulatory Agreement sent to legal counsel. 6. Preservation of Housing and Related Support of Brewster Residents (SB H-3, HPP Strategy #20) Regional Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Program continues. Website announcement about housing rehab and childcare funding. 7. Subsidized Housing Inventory (SHI) (HPP Strategy #21 & 22) Buy-down award of $30,000 to assist with the affordable resale purchase of 50 James Burr Road. Began work on 212 Yankee Drive RFQ to preserve the property, restore to use, and resell to an eligible homebuyer. Legal counsel guidance. Site visit with James Jones from DPW & Donna Kalinick. Gave tour of Brewster affordable housing to Rieko Hayashi from DHCD. Continued coordinated follow-up on several SHI homes of concern. 8. Housing Production Plan (HPP) (Select Board Strategic Plan Goal H-2) With one small clarification, 2022 HPP was approved by DHCD. 9.Collaboration (HPP Strategy #7) Attended HOME Consortium meeting and One Cape Summit and participated in a focus group for regional housing market study update. Upcoming Activities/ Highlights Community Housing Forum will be held Thursday October 27th 5-6:30PM at Brewster Ladies Library. Personnel Participated in Bay Parcel, Housing Partnership & Housing Trust meetings. Attended community outreach task force and ARPA information session. Also worked with: Assessor’s, Building, Council on Aging, Fire, Health, Natural Resources, Planning, Public Works, and Town Administration. Developing a comprehensive regional housing strategy to secure our region’s future Developing a regional housing strategy that will address the housing supply, affordability, and availability issues facing the region is a key recommendation of the Regional Policy Plan. Successful implementation of the regional housing plan will not only provide residents with safe and attainable housing, but will also provide a more reliable workforce and customer base for our local businesses. AFFORDABLE AND ATTAINABLE HOUSING CHALLENGES Affordable and attainable housing for people with a variety of income levels and needs is key to a vibrant, healthy, and resilient region. However, Cape Cod is facing a significant challenge in providing affordable and attainable housing for current and future Cape Cod residents. The region’s draw as a seasonal and retirement destination, combined with regulatory and physical limitations have resulted in a highly constrained housing market that is unaffordable to many residents; a problem which has only become more acute during the COVID-19 pandemic. Baseline Data –Compilation and analysis of the current population and housing units in the county, by subregion, and town will provide a deeper understanding of the current housing landscape. This will look into affordability of housing in those geographies, as well as regulatory or land use characteristics and traits of the current housing stock. Regional Housing Strategy PROJECT ELEMENTS Stakeholder Engagement –Through a series of meetings, an online survey, and focus groups, stakeholders will identify housing preferences, barriers to providing desired housing in the region, and strategies and tools for overcoming those challenges. Strategies & Recommendations –Based on the feedback from the stakeholder meetings and the initial data collection and compilation process, strategies and recommendations will be identified for implementation and facilitating action toward solving for the region’s housing challenges. Residential Design Guidelines –Residential guidelines will help facilitate residential development that provides more diversity in housing options and types, including net-zero housing, but in forms that still complement and fit in the with character of the region. JUNE 2 0 2 2 *Project elements are subject to change. Decision Support Tool –A decision support tool will help local staff and leaders achieve housing goals and visions, based on the challenges and strategies identified in the plan. Regional Affordable Housing Entities –Commission staff will evaluate the potential, and develop recommendations, for new regional entities to manage the development of additional affordable housing units for the region, to augment the Strategy’s recommendations. 100% Recycled Paper 482 Main Street | Dennis, MA 02638 Tel: 508-619-3185 | info@apcc.org | www.apcc.org Andrew Gottlieb Executive Director BOARD OF DIRECTORS Eliza McClennen President Steven Koppel Vice President Bob Ciolek Treasurer Jack Looney Clerk John Cumbler Margo Fenn Joshua Goldberg DeeDee Holt Thomas Huettner Pat Hughes Elysse Magnotto-Cleary Blue Magruder Stephen Mealy Wendy Northcross Kris Ramsay Robert Summersgill Charles Sumner Taryn Wilson August 31, 2022 Brewster Select Board Brewster Town Offices 2198 Main Street Brewster, MA 02631 RE: Proposed Wing Island Boardwalk Project Dear Members of the Brewster Select Board: The Association to Preserve Cape Cod (APCC) offers the following comments on the proposed Wing Island Boardwalk project. Founded in 1968, APCC is the Cape region’s leading nonprofit env ironmental advocacy and education organization, working for the adoption of laws, policies and programs that protect, preserve, and restore Cape Cod’s natural resources. APCC focuses our efforts on the protection of groundwater, surface water, wetland resources, preservation of open space, the promotion of responsible planned growth and the achievement of an environmental ethic. A crucial part of APCC’s ongoing program work is assisting in the restoration of salt marshes across Cape Cod. Over the course of several years, APCC participated with the town of Brewster, the state and other partners on a series of salt marsh restoration projects to restore tidal flow to Stony Brook salt marsh and to Quivett Creek salt marsh. From our extensive efforts in the two salt marshes undertaking pre- and post-restoration monitoring, conducting species inventory, measuring marsh elevations and performing other duties, we are very familiar with, and greatly appreciate, the significant role the combined Stony Brook and Quivett Creek salt marsh system plays in the ecological function and health of the important marine and freshwater resources located in this region of Cape Cod. In studying the concept design for the proposal, APCC believes that removal of the existing wooden planks extending to Wing Island and replacing them with an elevated structure would reduce environmental impacts to the salt marsh at that location. This would alleviate current adverse impacts to the underling peat layer 100% Recycled Paper 482 Main Street | Dennis, MA 02638 Tel: 508-619-3185 | info@apcc.org | www.apcc.org and to marsh vegetation, allowing the vegetation to regenerate in the area where the planks existed. It may also improve natural tidal flow that the planks are possibly impeding. While the concept design, including the proposed method of construction and materials such as the helical anchors, appears to reduce the extent of physical impact to the marsh compared to other possible construction methods, the potential for impacts from the introduction of structures within the fragile salt marsh system is not completely erased. APCC therefore encourages the town to seek ways to reduce the project area to the greatest extent possible, thereby minimizing shading of vegetation from the boardwalk. Reducing the size of the boardwalk project will result in a better functioning natural resource and allow for greater protection of the salt marsh and its associated sensitive habitat, including locations where rare species are documented within the marsh. APCC thanks the Brewster Select Board for this opportunity to provide comment. Sincerely, Andrew Gottlieb Executive Director Town of Brewster 2198 Main Street Brewster, MA 02631-1898 Phone: (508) 896-3701 Fax: (508) 896-8089 Comments on Wing Island Boardwalk Project Received After Deadline Anne Jacobson <anne.h.jacobson@gmail.com> Friends - I am very supportive of the idea to build an elevated boardwalk to Wing Island from Drummer Boy Park, linking with a boardwalk from the Natural History Museum. In recent years, my husband and I have twice taken naturalist-led walks from the Museum to Wing Island, so we're familiar with the current walkway and the soggy planks, which are difficult to navigate. We would welcome an elevated walkway, and the ability to access Wing Island from Drummer Boy Park. I appreciate the design focus on the projected risks of flooding and sea level rise into the second half of this century - that is wise. I also appreciate that the design would minimally impact the Quivet Marsh. I would hope additional design consideration would go into minimizing the visual impact on the "viewscape" of the Marsh, to the extent possible. We are fortunate to have a generous donor to help defray some of the project design and construction costs; this presents a real opportunity. Thank you for your consideration, Anne H Jacobson 113 Brook Trail Rd. Brewster, MA I know this is a little late but just wanted to give my opinion. Nancy L Kinton <nancykinton@icloud.com> First of all thank you for all your hard work on this project. It is very much appreciated by our family. My husband and I are active 70 year olds who like to hike the many beautiful trails in Brewster. Wing Island is one of our favorites. However, the current set up is a little difficult to navigate. Parking at DB and walking along busy Rte 6A in the summer is a little with cars and trucks whizzing by is not enjoyable. I would not want to bring my grandchildren to Wing Island as I feel that walking them along what is basically a highway is not safe. I think the idea of connecting DB directly to the trail is an excellent idea. Also crossing the marsh on the planks is not safe either, especially when tours are being given and you have to squeeze by many people. I had some difficulty and would not want to bring small children across during the busy summer months. My husband and I have enjoyed hiking trails around the Cape and boardwalks across wetlands can be environmentally friendly and aesthetically pleasing. Two examples are the Red Cedar Swamp in Eastham and the Audubon in Welfleet. We fully support this effort by the town and believe it will be a great improvement and a much needed safety upgrade. Nancy and Tom Kinton Mary ElderSchleiss <schleissmannm@gmail.com> Hello and to whom it may concern, I am not a full time resident my husband and I just bought a home in January and we will retire here. We have been coming to Brewster for 29 years and prior, my husband came to Brewster during his entire childhood as well. Our 26 yes. old son, Nicholas, is an avid birder and travels the world as a field biologist studying birds. He has grown up going to Wing Island each summer. He has never had a problem accessing the areas he has needed to get to to study birds. It appears that you are considering a walkway to connect Drummer Boy Park with Wing Island. As a tourist, I probably would think that it's great and convenient and it hooks up to places I might like to access for my tourist needs. However, having a son that is a naturalist, I know that this building of this walkway will disturb nature. You know the saying, "if it ain't broke, don't fix it"? Please preserve this lovely, natural area as is and please don't cave to whoever it is that wants this and disturb the ecosystem that quietly exists. If you folks on the "conservation" board are truly conservationists at all, you will say no to disturbing this natural treasure. Thanks, Mary Schleissmann Sarah Hewitt <sarhewitt@comcast.net> Don’t take away the adventure of this amazing walk. You are destroying one if the most beautiful areas in Brewster and taking away what a true, natural hike should be. STOP!!!!!! Sarah Hewitt Celia CALHOUN <ccalhouncape@comcast.net> Hello! I am a full-time resident of Brewster for 6 years, and of Orleans for 20 years before that. I missed the August meeting but have looked through the presentation on the changes to access to Wing's Island. I walk there frequently. I call it my Daily Walk, although I don't get there more than once or twice a week at present. It is my refreshment, my meditation, a source of serenity for me. I am often there on the beach with no-one in sight for 1/2 a mile or more. I frequently count both the Lady Slipper flowers (in season) and the Sassafras seedlings in view on the eastern path and enjoy their flourishing. Call me crazy! The new boardwalk looks lovely but I worry about what happens after that. We are encouraging many more people, with a lot more paraphernalia to arrive at Wing's Island, and then what? Are we planning to change the path through the woods or make the steps down or the steps up on the other side of the island more accessible? I truly hope not. The path through the woods is magic, even spiritual, in all its wonderful naturalness, and through all the seasons. If that were paved it would destroy the essence of the island. We need to balance accessibility to the Bay beaches with the preservation of some wildness for future generations. Please let me know when the October Public Forum is scheduled as I would love to attend. Thanks for listening! Celia Calhoun Cecilia J. Calhoun 206 Billington Lane Brewster, MA 02631 Lorraine Hammond <lch02631@gmail.com> I recently heard about the plans for the boardwalk. I am Am horrified by such an idea! This would do to pristine wing island and pains creek what was done to Heritage Park in sandwich. For what, maybe tourists. Already there is a parking problem at pains creek.As important is the impact it would have on the marches and wild live and purifying of the water in our aquifer. Who is going to clean up the debris thrown over from the boardwalk? I hope you will reconsider the plan to build a boardwalk! Lorraine Hammond Brewster, MA Evelyn Salvadore <evelyns8@comcast.net> Dear Town Official, I am writing to voice opposition to the proposed boardwalk over the marsh to Wing Island. This is a pristine, highly environmentally sensitive area that should be left alone by people. Any activity on this marsh should be limited and monitored. The boardwalk will allow tourists and everyone else to access this area. Trash will become an issue. Heavy storms are sure to cause damage to the boardwalk. This is a needless project. The current John Wing trail can be improved. Low tide access only makes it even more special. There are many beautiful trails on the Cape that only have low tide access. Please protect this area as it deserves to be protected and keep it remote. Thank you! Evelyn Salvadore 48 Old Meadow Road Brewster, MA 02631 Timothy Chase <tchase60@gmail.com> I know this is too late but just wanted to bring to your attention the Mass Audubon's All Persons trails project. It would be interesting to reach out to MAS and get some construction advice and support. Check out the YouTube video https://youtu.be/eSQxuDEhKwk Tim Chase (508)896-0014 124 Canoe Pond Dr Brewster MA 02631 Jenn Gale <galejenn5@gmail.com> Hello, I am writing to voice my opinion for greater accessibility to our natural resources for those who need it and improvements so the impact to the marsh is minimal. I would love to see this project move forward as a big fan of both drummer boy park, the museum , and the town of Brewster- all of these assets will draw locals and visitors to our towns resources, building community and supporting local business. Thank you! Full time resident of Sheep Pond Estates Jenn Gale 7196403041 Lora Pisarchuk <thegeetah@comcast.net> Suggestions A raised boardwalk so you can get across at high tide that’s handicapped accessible. Patricia Walker <paw403708@yahoo.com> In my opinion this project is a very bad idea. So I have to ask: When will "development" be enough? Perhaps it will be enough when all of the Cape is a theme park. This board walk will create a pen in which coyotes will be able to trap the deer.. The board walk is too low for the deer to squeeze under and too high for them to leap over. This board walk will crash through the habitat of lots of different species, (bugs, crabs, birds, plants etc.) This board walk will be in opposition to the prevailing wind and be destroyed by the first big storm. Even it were to parallel the wind it would just take longer to be destroyed. Why is it so difficult for people to just leave nature to nature? Or must egos, compete for attention at the expense of the natural habitat.? Patricia Walker 403 Stony Brook Rd. Brewster, MA 02631 Archive d: Friday, September 23, 2022 2:01:51 PM From: Hal Minis Se nt: Fri, 23 Sep 2022 17:07:37 To: Peter Lombardi Subje ct: Wing Island design Se ns itivity: Normal He l l o Pete r, I real i ze that the comment peri od on the Wing Island boardwal k conce pt de si gn i s ove r, but I woul d like to offer some comments, speaking strictl y on my own behal f. I apol ogize for not getti ng these in within the comment peri od. Improving the current acce ss to Wi ng Island is important f or a numbe r of reasons. The current access of boards laid in the marsh fl oor i s ecologi cally unsound. The passage trampl e s the marsh floor and acts as a barri e r to marsh fauna. It is also a di ffi cul t passageway for users in that the pl anks are unstabl e and not wi de enough for two people causing one person to ste p into the marsh when anothe r wal ker is comi ng i n the opposite di recti on. Fi nally, and most important for the future access, the boardwal k floods at high tides with incre asing frequency making the path i mpassible for longer peri ods of ti me . Fl oodi ng will onl y ge t worse as sea leve l ri se s. If access to Wing Island is to be pre se rve d into the future , the re must be a different soluti on. The design concept pre se nted recentl y has some posi tive f e atures and se veral that coul d be altered to sui t the community’s ne e ds. The current design limits dire ct access to the marsh to one poi nt near Wing Island. Thi s wi l l re duce the damage to the marsh that the current boardwalk cre ate s, but sti l l provide educational and re se arch programs access to the marsh. The use of helical scre w footi ngs avoi ds the need for heavy equi pme nt on the marsh be cause they can be i nstal l e d from above on compl eted boardwalk secti ons. The curre nt de si gn also takes i nto account sea level rise and i ts i mpact on access. Final l y, the design ensure s acce ssi bi l i ty for peopl e with limite d mobility. The re are a number of ways the design can be improved and project details added to make the boardwalk more suitabl e f or the Brewster community i n my opinion. 1. Lowe r the de si gn he i ght. Whi l e the current de si gn i s above me an hi gh water in 2070, the land on Wing Island at thi s elevati on is flooded. It make s no sense to keep the boardwal k hi gh when the desti nati on point is unde rwate r. 2. Reduce the width. The current design width of 10 feet is i nconsi stent wi th the nature of Brewster’s walking trai l s and the nature of Wi ng Isl and and Drummer Boy Park as the end points of the boardwalk. Can the wi dth be re duce d to 6 fe et? A greater number of bump-out vi e wing stati ons could allow people to view the marsh without interrupting f oot traffic. 3. Use railings that maximize visibility across the boardwal k and onto the marsh. 4. Consider using a walki ng surface that maximizes l i ght passage through the deck to re duce the shadi ng of marsh vege tation. Pl e asant Bay Community Boating has used this on the recently constructed pi e r. 5. Consider one access poi nt on the land side. To re duce the footpri nt over the marsh and reduce the cost of the proj e ct, consi de r one acce ss point eithe r at Drumme r Boy Park or at the current locati on by the Museum. Be cause this i s a Town project and public parking will be more avai l able at Drummer Boy, that should probabl y be the primary location. In thi s way, groups from the Museum will wal k along Rt 6A to ge t access, as the publ i c currentl y has to walk al ong 6A to gain access. If the Museum would l i ke to create a l i nk, pe rhaps the y coul d raise the funds for it. 6. De velop a management Plan for Wing Island. In re cogniti on of the fragile nature of Wing Island and the probabl e incre ase i n foot traffic the boardwal k wi l l ge ne rate, the Town should prepare a manage me nt pl an to addre ss issues such as endangered species protecti on, erosi on of paths, and other human impacts. Thank you for l e tti ng me submit these comments. Hal Mi ni s 774-323-0292 Town of Brewster 2198 Main Street Brewster, MA 02631-1898 Phone: (508) 896-3701 Fax: (508) 896-8089 September 27, 2022 TO: Millstone Road Residents FROM: Brewster Select Board RE: Temporary Access Needed for Millstone Road Improvement Project The Town of Brewster is undertaking a road improvement project on Millstone Road that will involve the installation of sidewalks and the creation of a consistent roadway shoulder. The roadway layout of Millstone Roads consists of a variable 40- to 50-foot-wide Town owned right- of-way. While project design is not yet fully finalized, the Town has adjusted the scope of work to ensure that permanent easements related to sidewalk construction and drainage improvements will not be required on any residential property on Millstone Road. However, based on the current proposed design, it is expected that there will be likely be temporary impacts on a portion of your property associated with the project. Accordingly, the Town is planning to bring an article to Special Town Meeting on November 14, 2022 to authorize the Town to enter into these temporary easements with residents for this purpose. This document summarizes the Town planned activities to secure necessary access and your rights as a landowner. 1. HOW WILL THE TOWN ADDRESS ACCESS ON RESIDENT PROPERTY TO COMPLETE THIS PROJECT? There are two kinds of easements – permanent and temporary. The Town does not anticipate any permanent easements for sidewalks and drainage. However, residents may be contacted in relation to utility easements. Utility easements allows utility companies to install and maintain infrastructure (eg. utility poles) that requires relocation or updating due to the project. The Town is not party to these agreements. Temporary access can be granted in two ways. Right of Entry agreements allow the contractor to perform certain work that is temporary in nature on adjacent private property outside of the Town’s right of way. The work frequently consists of loaming & seeding, slope work either behind the reconstructed road or new sidewalk, new driveway apron work, etc. In granting the Office of: Select Board Town Administrator Town a right of entry, residents waive their right to be compensated for these temporary impacts on their property. Temporary construction easements also allow the contractor to perform similar work. However, in this case, residents are paid a fair price for these temporary impacts. 2. WHAT IS A RIGHT OF ENTRY? The construction impacts from the project for residential properties will only be temporary in nature during construction (anticipated to take two years to construct at the most). A temporary donation during construction is often completed through a right of entry agreement. This agreement allows the Town to construct the project and, upon completion, restore the temporary impacts on private property. This procedure will minimize project costs for your community. 3. WHAT IS A FAIR PRICE FOR A TEMPORARY EASEMENT? In the event that a right of entry agreement is not considered or completed, every effort will be made to ensure that equitable compensation is provided to impacted residents. The temporary impact area for residential properties along Millstone Road ranges from approximately 40 sf to 4000 sf, with proportional cost considerations. To ensure equitable and fair compensation, the Town is applying the same methodology to calculate the cost of all temporary property impacts of this project, which will be based on current assessed values. 4. WHAT ARE THE NEXT STEPS? Once the design has been finalized and specific temporary property impacts are fully known, Town officials will contact you. They will explain the procedures used in acquiring any necessary temporary rights in land. If you feel that the Town’s offer is not fair at that time, you may petition the courts within 3 years. In the meantime, this appeal action does not stop or delay project activities. You may be paid pro tanto (for the time being), but such payment will not prejudice the court’s final decision. The Town is contacting you now to provide this initial information to ensure residents are informed in advance of the related Town Meeting article in November that will broadly allow this process to move forward. If you have any questions about the process, do not hesitate to contact the Town Administrator’s office at (508) 896-3701. For property specific questions, please contact the Department of Public Works at (508) 896-3212. Administrator’s Report September 21, 2022 Ransomware Attack The Cape Cod Regional Transit Authority was the target of a ransomware attack over the Memorial Day weekend. As a result of this attack, IT server files were encrypted which initially impacted access to the CCRTA’s IT systems. In response to this attack, immediate measures were put in place to keep transit services running without interruption. In addition, the CCRTA notified and worked with the proper authorities to assist in the restoration of our network and as of July 1, 2022, all mission critical IT systems are operational. The CCRTA does not store personal identifiable information on its server, so at no time was this information subject to the attack. In order to greatly reduce the chance of a cyberattack in the future, the CCRTA has taken the following steps: a significantly enhanced spam software was procured and is now in place; Email has been moved from the CCRTA’s server to a cloud-based application; policies regarding passwords and system access have been fortified; and improved protocols for limited remote access to the CCRTA’s IT systems are now in place. Summer Update As the Summer 2022 season came to an end, we took the opportunity to convene a series of meetings, spanning all sectors of both the Administration and Operation teams, to assess the lessons learned and how we succeeded at providing exceptional transit services to our region, despite the national challenges of employee shortages. The most important reasons for our successes all revolve around the dedication of the team that takes a personalized approach to problem-solving for customers and finding ways to better serve in any environment. Despite the challenges, our fixed route product lines operated at 96% of pre-pandemic levels. We continued to refine and expand the SmartDART application and service model. We maintained extremely high overall on-time performance of 98.16%, despite summer Cape Cod traffic patterns. We focused on unwavering safety and customer experience as being the two key target areas. Similarly, the CapeFLYER experienced a lot of brand-new riders this season. We attribute this to an increase in marketing which targeted key areas where the majority of our riders reside according to several years of survey results. We included promotional events with popular radio stations and participated heavily in digital and streaming services as well as high traffic area billboards. Ridership increased by 24% over last year and we are at 65% of pre-pandemic numbers, which compares very favorably to the MBTA’s overall ridership numbers at 56%. We will continue to aggressively market the CapeFLYER as well as the Cape Cod RTA to make consumer awareness a priority. Personnel Updates Steph Spadoni joined the CCRTA this past May in the newly created role of Director of Research in Reporting. Steph has been diving into her focus of helping us become a more data- driven organization. With the creation of the Business Insights Steering Committee, chaired by Steph, she is conducting a “data inventory” to document and map all the reports CCRTA generates and uses on a recurring basis. Not only will this work result in valuable documentation of our processes, but will also involve process-improvement and increased efficiencies for our team. In addition to focusing on our data, Steph is also involved in our efforts to combat climate change. She’s working on all things related to hiring the EV Consultant, the Cape Cod Climate Change Collaborative, and several projects to promote bicycle travel around the Cape. Steph is also our new liaison with the Cape Cod Commission and has already established a strong working relationship with their team. We’re excited to have Steph on our team. Deb Shores, whose talents are familiar to all of us will be joining the CCRTA team full-time as Director of Grants. Deb has been an integral part of the sound fiscal management we have enjoyed here at CCRTA under Henry’s leadership for many years. Cape Cod Climate Change Collaborative CCRTA staff actively participates on the Cape Cod Climate Change Collaborative’s board and regularly attends their meetings and events. In addition to me serving on the Collaborative’s Special sub-Committee on Energy, Transportation and the Built Environment, Steph Spadoni, CCRTA Director of Research and Reporting has also gotten involved with the Collaborative. Last month, Steph attended a special luncheon hosted by the Collaborative with EPA Director of Region 1, Dr. David Cash. Dr. Cash spoke about the US EPA's 2022 priorities and Region 1's areas of focus. We are keeping the Collaborative informed as we plan our transition from internal combustion engines to electric vehicles, as well as of our initiatives to increase ridership on our fixed route buses. Focusing efforts to make public transit easier and more desirable to use will help get folks out of their individual cars and reduce greenhouse gas emissions overall. Electric Vehicle and EV Infrastructure Study Procurement CCRTA is working with the Cape Cod Commission to complete the Scope of Work and required documentation for the issuance of an RFP/RFQ for the procurement of technical consultant services to develop a detailed plan for the migration from Fossil Fuel Vehicles to EV & EV Infrastructure. The development of this procurement document is in the final stage and is expected to be issued within the next few weeks. The first task of the EV consultant’s efforts will be the development of EV infrastructure standards, best practices, and recommendations to include: interoperability of EV charging infrastructure; installation, operation, and maintenance of EV charging infrastructure; supporting traffic control device or on-premises signage acquired, installed, or operated in concert with EV charging infrastructure; EV system data production, including network connectivity of EV charging infrastructure and format and schedule for the submission of such data to a centralized data repository; real-time mapping applications for information on publicly available EV charging infrastructure locations, pricing, and availability; risks and appropriate actions associated with first responder electric vehicle/infrastructure fires. We believe this first task document will provide great value to the CCRTA, Towns and other Cape-region stakeholders as we embark on the migration to EVs and supporting EV infrastructure. After the completion of the first task, the EV consultant will be charged with developing a detailed long-term plan to transition from our current fossil-fueled fleet to battery electric buses (BEB) and also a plan for the implementation of a Cape-wide electrical vehicle charging network. Interoperability with various partners across the Cape, such as Steamship Authority and Towns, as well as ensuring CCRTA has the proper facility and qualified staff to maintain the fleet are all important factors our team is considering. We have been educating ourselves on other regional and state government electric studies, both through their final reports as well as scopes of work prior to projects beginning. Cape Tech We were informed of the Cape Tech’s successful grant application for the development of an Electric Vehicle Technicians Automotive Technology Program, funded through the MassSkills Capital Grant Program. Additionally, I was asked to participate in a meeting with the School, Mark Ells, and the school’s consultant to further advance this objective through a second round of MassSkills funding. The Cape Tech’s EV training program curriculum embodies the CCRTA’s strategic planning efforts in this area. Over the last year plus, the CCRTA has devoted substantial planning efforts specific to the development of an Electrical Vehicle (EV) Maintenance Technology Program. Vital to the success of these planning efforts, we fully recognize that a regional collaborative approach involving the Cape’s Tech Schools, Cape Cod Community College, CCRTA and other key stakeholders will be needed to address the glaring void that presently exists for highly skilled technicians in this fast-emerging EV and EV Infrastructure maintenance field. In addition to providing students who have completed this program with an opportunity to be placed in highly sought after and well-paying jobs, the CCRTA envisions that it could also serve as a feeder system for skilled EV mechanics/technicians placed with CCRTA’s Operator or a supplementary training program for our Operator’s mechanics. SmartDART – On-Demand Service In this fiscal year, we have registered an additional 371 riders and have provided 1671 trips. Feedback continues to be positive and there is continued demand for increased service. Adding tablets to our DART vehicles, as reported during the last meeting, has been successful as we have been able to dual use our vehicles to put as many driver hours out as possible. I continue to view SmartDART as a potential game changer in the delivery of public transit in our region. The pandemic and driver shortage challenges have prevented us from expanding Cape-wide as rapidly as I had initially hoped. The Barnstable-Yarmouth pilots have reinforced my enthusiasm for continued expansion. We will be providing SmartDART service in Falmouth beginning later this Fall and I am hopeful further Upper Cape expansion will occur soon. Passenger Information Bus Shelter Displays The CCRTA will be installing solar powered bus shelter information displays providing real time information to passengers starting in Falmouth this fall. Once successfully tested, installation will be expanded to bus shelters located throughout the Cape. The CCRTA is expecting demo units to be able to work on the look and feel of the displays, which is the last step prior to deployment to the field. Operator Collective Bargaining Agreement The CCRTA’s Operator is presently in Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA) negotiations with the Union representing its employees. The present Agreement terminates on 9/30/2022 and the extension will cover the next 3-year period. The Operator keeps CCRTA management closely informed on all CBA negotiations and the CCRTA provides direct guidance in shaping negotiations. As always, wages and benefits are of particular importance and generally involve the greatest level of negotiation. Presently, all is progressing as expected and it is anticipated that the CBA will be approved by the Operator’s employees in the near future. 10-Year Strategic Plan & 5-Year Capital Spending Plan – TIP Amendments The CCRTA recently finalized its 10-Year Strategic Plan and supporting 5-Year Capital Plan that identifies the key goals and capital projects that the Authority will be undertaking over the next 5-years. Implementation of the 10-Year Strategic Plan and supporting 5-Year Capital Plan will require revisions to the existing Transportation Improvement Plan (TIP) covering Federal Fiscal Year 2023 through 2027 CCRTA is currently working with the Cape Cod Commission on revisions to the TIP, which will be presented at the October JTC and MPO meetings Federal Fiscal Year 2023 will require detailed deletion and addition amendments to the TIP Federal Fiscal Year 2024 through 2027 will be submitted as a new and full replacement of the former TIP Next step actions for revisions to the TIP for Federal Fiscal Year 2023 through 2027: CCRTA will present a high-level overview of the proposed TIP amendments, consistent with the final 10-Year Strategic Plan/5-Year Capital Spending Plan at the 9/19/2022 MPO meeting TIP amendments will be provided to MassDOT for review, discussion, and acceptance TIP amendments will be presented for review and approval at 10/14/22 JTC meeting and 10/17/22 MPO meeting After TIP amendments are approved, the CCRTA will file the required grants in the State and Federal systems in support of the projects identified in the TIP The TIP, which aligns with the CCRTA’s 5-Year Capital Spending Plan covering fiscal years 2023 through 2027, devotes significant federal and state funding resources to three main capital categories: 1) Infrastructure Improvements; 2) Updating of Rolling Stock; 3) Cape-Wide Initiatives. FTA standard formula funding and the significant increase provided through CARES Act; CRRSAA, and ARPA stimulus funding are the major funding sources supporting proposed revisions to the TIP Substantial funding resources over the 5-year TIP period are devoted to the migration from fossil fuel vehicles to Electrical Vehicles (EV) and supporting EV infrastructure Working with the Cape Cod Commission to complete the Scope of Work and required documentation for the issuance of an RFP/RFQ for the procurement of technical consultant services to develop a detailed plan for the migration from Fossil Fuel Vehicles to EV & EV Infrastructure Funding provided includes either alterations to the existing Operations maintenance facility to accommodate EV maintenance or a newly constructed EV maintenance facility September 19, 2022 Via Email Ms. Cynthia Bingham Mr. David Whitney Mr. Ned Chatelain Ms. Mary Chaffee Ms. Kari Hoffmann Dear Brewster Select Board: As Amherst Town leaders, we are writing you on behalf of the Town of Amherst regarding an urgent municipal matter – and one which we believe we share with you. The Jones Library in Amherst was accepted into the Massachusetts Board of Library Commissioners (MBLC) grant program in 2017. We were awarded a $13.8M grant by the MBLC in 2021. The original project cost was estimated to be $36.3M. Today, given the unprecedented rate of inflation, that project is now estimated at nearly $50M. The original commitment from the MBLC was to fund 38% of the project cost – today that percentage has shrunk to 28%. Like Amherst, the Brewster Ladies’ Library is on the current list of projects that MBLC plans to fund during this round. The current projected cost of $16,411,387 represents a 60% increase from the original estimate – yet, like Amherst, the MBLC grant to Brewster remains the same. It is clear that without State help both of our badly needed library projects are in serious danger of not going forward. We are proposing a united initiative where all municipalities facing this unprecedented situation, jointly work with our respective legislators to provide the necessary funds to MBLC so the MBLC can fund each project at the same percent as originally promised. Thankfully, our Commonwealth finances are solid, so we are confident that it is possible for the state to address this one-time shortfall. Timing of this potential legislative action is critical. We urge you to contact your State Senator Julian Cyr at julian.cyr@masenate.gov and your State Representative Timothy Whelan at Timothy.Whelan@mahouse.gov as soon as possible, asking that they work with the Senate and House Leadership in supporting the request for immediate increased funding for the MBLC in the amount of $87.6M. This amount includes the funds necessary to make up the difference between the original project cost and the current projected cost for all 12 Towns on the current MBLC list. If you would like to discuss this coordinated initiative in more detail, please contact us at your earliest convenience at griesemerl@amherstma.gov or at 413-530-3629 (personal cell number) and/or Paul Bockelman at bockelmanp@amherstma.gov. Thank you for your attention to this critical matter. Lynn Griesemer, President Paul Bockelman, Town Manager Amherst Town Council Town of Amherst PENSION RESERVES INVESTMENT MANAGEMENT (“PRIM”) BOARD PENSION RESERVES INVESMENT TRUST (“PRIT”) TOTAL FUND GIPS ASSET OWNER REPORT PRIM claims compliance with the Global Investment Performance Standards (GIPS®) and has prepared and presented this report in compliance with the GIPS standards. PRIM has been independently verified for the periods July 1, 2008 through June 30, 2022. The verification reports are available upon request. An asset owner that claims compliance with the GIPS standards must establish policies and procedures for complying with all the applicable requirements of the GIPS standards. Verification provides assurance on whether the asset owner’s policies and procedures related to total fund and composite maintenance, as well as the calculation, presentation, and distribution of performance, have been designed in compliance with the GIPS standards and have been implemented on an asset owner-wide basis. Verification does not provide assurance on the accuracy of any specific performance report. PRIT Total Fund Description: The PRIM Board is charged with the general oversight of the PRIT Fund. The PRIM Board seeks to maximize the return on investments within acceptable levels of risk and cost for an approximately 60% funded public pension fund, by broadly diversifying its investment portfolio, capitalizing on economies of scale to achieve cost-effective operations, and gaining access to high quality, innovative investment management firms, all under the management of a professional staff and members of the PRIM Board. The PRIM Board’s overall investment performance goal is to achieve a time-weighted return that exceeds the targeted actuarial rate of return used in determining the Commonwealth of Massachusetts’ pension obligations. The target actuarial rate for FY22 was 7.0%. The total fund is compared against the Total Core Benchmark, which is custom blended benchmark that is weighted dynamically to match the actual asset class weights of the fund. Prior to April 1, 2020, some benchmark components were weighted based on target weights for the asset class. Details of the custom blended benchmark components, weights, and historical changes can be found in the tables on the final two pages of this report. The PRIT Total Fund was created September 2018 and incepted on July 1, 2008. For purposes of complying with the GIPS standards, the “Asset Owner” is defined as Pension Reserves Investment Management Board (“PRIM”). PRIM manages the Pension Reserves Investment Trust Fund (“PRIT”), created by legislation (Chapter 661 of the Acts of 1983) to accumulate assets through investment earnings and other revenue sources in order to assist the Commonwealth in reducing its unfunded pension liability. PRIM assists local participating retirement systems to meet their pension obligations. Because the PRIT Total Fund represents 100% of the assets managed by PRIM, this presentation represents PRIM’s list of total fund and composite descriptions. The U.S. Dollar is the currency used to express performance. Total fund net-of-fee returns are net of transaction costs and actual investment management costs (internal and external). Investment management costs include internal investment department staffing costs, actual external manager fees (both asset-based and performance-based), data valuation fees, investment research services, custodian fees, performance measurement services, consultant advisory fees, administrative fees, and the allocation of technology service and other overhead costs and expenses, such as human resources. Subadvisors have been used for the entire period shown. The PRIT Total Fund includes all individual portfolios that are combined into one aggregate portfolio. The performance of the combined portfolio reflects the overall mandate of the plan. The three-year annualized standard deviation measures the variability of the total fund’s net of fee returns over the preceding 36-month period. Total Fund and benchmark performance are presented net of foreign withholding taxes. Past performance is not indicative of future results. Policies for valuing investments, calculating performance, and preparing GIPS Reports are available upon request. GIPS® is a registered trademark of CFA Institute. CFA Institute does not endorse or promote this organization, nor does it warrant the accuracy or quality of the content contained herein. 1-Year Period Ending Year End Total Asset Owner Assets (USD) (Billions) Total Fund Assets (USD) (Billions) Annual Performance Net Total Core Custom Blended Benchmark Returns Composite 3 Yr Std Dev Total Core Custom Blended Benchmark 3 Yr Std Dev 30-Jun-22 FY22 $92 $92 -3.4%-4.9%8.9%8.5% 30-Jun-21 FY21 $96 $96 29.5%20.6%8.8%8.4% 30-Jun-20 FY20 $75 $75 2.0%3.9%7.7%7.5% 30-Jun-19 FY19 $75 $75 5.7%6.6%5.8%5.3% 30-Jun-18 FY18 $72 $72 9.5%8.1%5.5%5.4% 30-Jun-17 FY17 $67 $67 12.8%12.0%5.3%5.5% 30-Jun-16 FY16 $61 $61 1.9%1.5%5.9%6.0% 30-Jun-15 FY15 $61 $61 3.5%2.8%4.6%4.6% 30-Jun-14 FY14 $61 $61 17.1%14.9%7.7%7.9% 30-Jun-13 FY13 $53 $53 12.3%10.9%8.6%8.8% Custom Blended Benchmark Components and Weightings as of June 30, 2022: *The index is dynamically weighted monthly for all periods. The weightings are determined by BNY Mellon monthly based upon the beginning adjusted market value asset weights within each custom blended benchmark. † The index experiences a quarter lag. ‡ The index has been customized to exclude Tobacco, Iran, Sudan, and Russia. **The actual performance of the fund was used for this component since no index is available that offers a meaningful comparison. Prior to April 1, 2020, all indices other than those footed with “*” are rebalanced to their static weight monthly. Beginning April 1, 2020, these indices are dynamically weighted monthly. The weightings are determined by BNY Mellon monthly based upon the beginning adjusted market value asset weights within each custom blended benchmark. Historical Custom Blended Benchmark Changes: ‡ The index has been customized to exclude Tobacco, Iran, Sudan, and Russia. Benchmark Descriptions: Global Equities: • S&P 500: The S&P 500 is an American stock market index based on the market capitalizations of 500 large companies having common stock listed on the NYSE or NASDAQ. • LIBOR: LIBOR is a benchmark rate that represents the interest rate at which banks offer to lend funds to one another in the international interbank market for short-term loans. LIBOR is an average value of the interest-rate which is calculated from estimates submitted by the leading global banks on a daily basis. • FTSE Russell 2000 Growth Index: The Russell 2000 Growth Index is based on roughly 2,000 small-cap companies located in the United States that exhibit growth properties. • FTSE Russell 2000 Value Index: The Russell 2000 Value Index is based on roughly 2,000 small-cap companies located in the United States that exhibit value properties. • FTSE Russell 2500 Growth Index: The Russell 2500 Growth Index is designed to measure the performance of those Russell 2500 companies with higher price-to-book ratios and higher forecasted growth values. • FTSE Russell 2500 Index: The Russell 2500 Index is a broad index, featuring 2,500 stocks that cover the small- and mid-cap market capitalizations. The Russell 2500 is a market cap-weighted index that includes the smallest 2,500 companies covered in the Russell 3000 universe of United States-based listed equities. • FTSE Russell Microcap Indexes: measures the performance of the microcap segment of the U.S. equity market. It makes up less than 3% of the U.S. equity market. It includes 1,000 of the smallest securities in the Russell 2000 Index based on a combination of their market cap and current index membership and it also includes up to the next 1,000 stocks. • MSCI USA Microcap Net Index: The MSCI USA Microcap Index is designed to measure the performance of the microcap segment of the US equity market. With 1,004 constituents, the index represents approximately 1% of the free float-adjusted market capitalization in the US. • MSCI ACWI Ex-US IMI NET DIVS: The MSCI ACWI ex USA Investable Market Index (IMI) captures large, mid, and small cap representation across 22 of 23 Developed Markets (DM) countries (excluding the United States) and 24 Emerging Markets (EM) countries*. With 6,670 constituents, the index covers approximately 99% of the global equity opportunity set outside the US. Fixed Income: • Barclays Capital US Aggregate Bond Index: The Barclays Capital US Aggregate Bond Index is a broad bond index covering most US traded bonds and some foreign bonds traded in the US. The index consists of approximately 17,000 bonds. • Bloomberg Barclays Global Inflation-Linked: U.S. TIPS Index: This index measures the performance of the US Treasury Inflation Protected Securities (TIPS) market. Federal Reserve holdings of US TIPS are not index eligible and are excluded from the face amount outstanding of each bond in the index. • Bloomberg Barclays World Govt Inflation-Linked All Maturities: This index measures the performance of investment grade, government inflation-linked debt from 12 different developed market countries. • Barclays Capital US Treasury STRIPS 20+ Yr Index: This index measures the investment return of Treasury STRIPS with maturities of 20+ years. • Bloomberg Barclay’s Treasury 1-3 Year Index: This index measures the performance of US Treasury securities with maturities between 1 and up to 3 years. Value-Added Fixed Income: • Merrill Lynch Master II High Yield Constrained Index: The index is a market value-weighted index of all domestic and yankee high-yield bonds, including deferred interest bonds and payment-in-kind securities. • S&P LSTA Leveraged Loan Index: The index tracks the current outstanding balance and spread over LIBOR for fully funded term loans. The facilities included represent a broad cross section of leveraged loans syndicated in the U.S., including dollar-denominated loans to overseas issuers. • JP Morgan EMBI Global Index: The Index tracks total returns for traded external debt instruments in the emerging markets. The index includes U.S. dollar-denominated Brady Bonds, loans, and Eurobonds with an outstanding face value of at least $500 million. • JP Morgan GBI-EM Global Diversified Index: The Index tracks total returns for traded external debt instruments in the emerging markets. In addition, it limits the weights of those index countries with larger debt stocks by only including a specified portion of these countries eligible current face amounts of debt outstanding. • 3Yr Annualized Altman NYU Solomon Center Combined Defaulted Public Bond & Bank Loan Index: This index includes defaulted bond and bank loan prices on a monthly basis from the default month until last price available (usually emergence from Chapter 11 or liquidation) from 1987 to present. Defaulted bank loan prices on a monthly basis available from 1996 to the present on over 750 bank loan facilities. • NCREIF Apartment Index: This is a sub-index of the NCREIF Property Index, focused specifically on a large pool of apartments acquired in the private market for investment purposes only. • S&P LSTA Leveraged Loan 100 Index: The S&P/LSTA U.S. Leveraged Loan 100 Index is designed to reflect the performance of the largest facilities in the leveraged loan market. • HFRI Indices – Broadly constructed indices designed to capture the breadth of hedge fund performance trends across all strategies and regions. Strategy-based indices are used as a comparison to investments made in similarly managed hedge funds. • Bivium Public VAFI Benchmark: Compromised of the ICE BofA Global High Yield Constrained Index and JP Morgan 50P EMBI Global 50P CEMBI Broad Diversified Index. • JP Morgan CLOIE Total Return Index: CLOIE offers total returns and analytics based on observable pricings of a representative pool of bonds following a stated methodology and is published daily. The index holistically captures the USD-denominated CLO market, representing over 3,000 instruments at a total par value of US $236.1 billion. Private Equity: • Russell 3000: The Russell 3000 Index is a capitalization-weighted stock market index, maintained by FTSE Russell, that seeks to be a benchmark of the entire U.S stock market. • MSCI Europe IMI: The MSCI Europe Investable Market Index (IMI) captures large, mid, and small cap representation across 15 Developed Markets countries in Europe. Real Estate: • NCREIF Property Index: The NCREIF Property Index (NPI) is a quarterly, unleveraged composite total return for private commercial real estate properties held for investment purposes only. All properties in the NPI have been acquired, at least in part, on behalf of tax-exempt institutional investors and held in a fiduciary environment. • FTSE EPRA NAREIT Developed Net Total Return Index: The FTSE EPRA NAREIT Global Real Estate Index Series is designed to represent general trends in eligible real estate equities worldwide. Relevant activities are defined as the ownership, disposal, and development of income-producing real estate. The index series now covers Global, Developed and Emerging indices, as well the UK's AIM market. • NCREIF NFI ODCE N 1QA: An index of investment returns reporting on both a historical and current basis the results of 36 open-end commingled funds pursuing a core investment strategy, some of which have performance histories dating back to the 1970s. The NFI-ODCE Index is capitalization-weighted and is reported gross of fees. Measurement is time weighted. Timberland: • NCREIF Timber Index: The NCREIF Timberland Index is a quarterly time series composite return measure of investment performance of a large pool of individual timber properties acquired in the private market for investment purposes only. All properties in the Timberland Index have been acquired, at least in part, on behalf of tax-exempt institutional investors - the great majority being pension funds. As such, all properties are held in a fiduciary environment. Portfolio Completion Strategies: • HFRI Indices – Broadly constructed indices designed to capture the breadth of hedge fund performance trends across all strategies and regions. Strategy-based indices are used as a comparison to investments made in similarly managed hedge funds. • SG Multi Alternative Risk Premia Net Index: The SG Multi Alternative Risk Premia Index represents risk premia managers who employ investment programs diversified across multiple asset classes while utilizing multiple risk premia factors. These managers trade multiple asset classes such as equities, fixed income, currencies, and in many cases commodities, and aim to capture a diversity of discrete risk premia, including most prevalently value, carry, and momentum. • PAAMCO Tactical Index: The Prisma Apex Tactical strategy provides access to concentrated investments in carefully selected, strictly defined, and often hard-to-access, niche and/or tactical themes, with a particular focus on opportunities arising from market dislocations, regulatory shifts, capital imbalances and/or policy changes where an attractive risk reward has been created. Investments are sourced from across our global platform (both internal and external channels) and are diversified across geographies, sectors, and asset class. • PAAMCO Cash: The PAAMCO Cash allocation represents a cash return for the liquidating portion of the PAAMCO portfolio. • NCREIF Farmland Index: The NCREIF Farmland Index is a quarterly time series composite return measure of investment performance of a large pool of individual farmland properties acquired in the private market for investment purposes only. All properties in the Farmland Index have been acquired, at least in part, on behalf of tax-exempt institutional investors - the great majority being pension funds. As such, all properties are held in a fiduciary environment. • Eurekahedge ILS Advisers Insurance Linked Securities: The Eurekahedge ILS Advisers Index tracks the performance of participating Insurance Linked Investment funds. It is the first benchmark that allows a comparison between different insurance-linked securities fund managers in the insurance-linked securities, reinsurance and catastrophe bond investment space. • CRB BLS Commodity Price Indexes: The commodity BLS Commodity Price Indexes measure price movements of 22 basic commodities whose markets are among the first to be influenced by changes in economic conditions. • US Producer Price Indexes: The Producer Price Index (PPI) program measures the average change over time in the selling prices received by domestic producers for their output. The prices included in the PPI are from the first commercial transaction for many products and some services. • Ascend Aircraft Leasing Returns Index: The Ascend Leasing Returns Index model estimates monthly returns from equity investment in commercial aircraft leasing through detailed analysis of the Flight Global Fleets Analyser and Flight Ascend Values databases. • S&P European All Loans USD Total Return Hedged Index: This index is designed to measure the total return on European senior loans with a hedge to USD. • MSCI China A Onshore NET Index USD: The MSCI China Net Total Return Index measures the performance of global Chinese companies in a net total return form (i.e. reinvestment of net dividend payout into the index portfolio) denominated in USD. market. • ICEML 3 M LIBOR/USD: The 3-month US Dollar (USD) LIBOR interest rate is the average interest rate at which a selection of banks in London are prepared to lend to one another in American dollars with a maturity of 3 months. Alongside the 3-month US Dollar (USD) LIBOR interest rate we also have a large number of other LIBOR interest rates for other maturities and/or in other currencies. • FTSE Russell 2500 Growth Index: The Russell 2500 Growth Index is designed to measure the performance of those Russell 2500 companies with higher price-to-book ratios and higher forecasted growth values. FINAL Select Bd Appt Policy; version Oct. 28 Appendix C SELECT BOARD COMMITTEE APPLICATION SCREENING FORM Applicant Name Requested Committee 1. TOWN CLERK REVIEW a. Applicant is a registered Brewster voter: Yes No b. Date confirmed 2. SELECT BOARD LIAISON RECOMMENDATION TO SELECT BOARD a. Select Board Liaison Applicant Interview: i. Interviewer name (Select Board Liaison): ii. Interview date: b. Select Board Liaison Consultation with Committee Chair: iii. Committee Chair name: iv. Consultation date: v. Did Committee Chair also interview applicant? Yes No c. Was at least 1 Brewster reference contacted: Yes No N/A d. Select Board Liaison Recommendation: i. Recommend appointment. ii. Recommend appointment to other committee that is a better fit for applicant qualifications. iii. Recommend holding application for future opening. iv. Not recommended. 3. SELECT BOARD ACTION a. At a Select Board meeting held , the Applicant was appointed to for a term ending year term. 4. NOTIFICATION OF APPOINTEE AND TOWN CLERK a. Date notification of appointment sent to appointee and Town Clerk: