HomeMy Public PortalAbout2 15 23 FinCom PacketTown of Brewster Finance Committee
2198 Main St., Brewster, MA 02631
fincommeeting@brewster-ma.gov
(508) 896-3701
MEETING AGENDA
Brewster Town Hall
2198 Main Street
February 15, 2023 at 6:00 PM
Pursuant to Chapter 107 of the Acts of 2022, this meeting will be conducted in person and via remote means, in accordance
with applicable law. This means that members of the public body may access this meeting in person, or via virtual means.
In person attendance will be at the meeting location listed above, and it is possible that any or all members of the public
body may attend remotely. No in-person attendance of members of the public will be permitted, and public participation
in any public hearing conducted during this meeting shall be by remote means only.
Members of the public who wish to access the meeting may do so in the following manner:
Phone: Call (929) 436-2866 or (301) 715-8592. Webinar ID: 862 2956 9696 Passcode: 565167
To request to speak: Press *9 and wait to be recognized.
Zoom Webinar: https://us02web.zoom.us/j/86229569696?pwd=MUhJNGpoU3VocTZ0cTU0VGpYcWdVQT09
Passcode: 565167
To request to speak: Tap Zoom “Raise Hand”, then wait to be recognized.
When required by law or allowed by the Chair, persons wishing to provide public comment or otherwise participate in the
meeting, may do so by accessing the meeting remotely, as noted above.
Additionally, the meeting will be broadcast live, in real time, via Live broadcast (Brewster Government TV Channel 18),
Livestream (livestream.brewster-ma.gov), or Video recording (tv.brewster-ma.gov).
Finance
Committee
Harvey (Pete) Dahl
Chair
Frank Bridges
Vice Chair
William Meehan
Clerk
Andrew Evans
William Henchy
Alex Hopper
Honey Pivirotto
Robert Tobias
Robert Young
Town
Administrator
Peter Lombardi
Finance Director
Mimi Bernardo
1.Call to Order
2.Declaration of a Quorum
3.Meeting Participation Statement
4.Recording Statement
5.Public Announcements and Comment: Members of the public may address the Finance Committee on
matters not on the meeting’s agenda for a maximum 3-5 minutes at the Chair’s discretion. Under the Open Meeting
Law, the Finance Committee is unable to reply but may add items presented to a future agenda.
6.Town Administrator/Finance Director Report
7.Presentation of March 6, 2023 Special Town Meeting Warrant Articles - Debra Johnson
8.March 6, 2023 Special Town Meeting Warrant Articles - Discussion and Vote
9.Liaison Reports and Assignments
10.Approval of Minutes
11.Request for agenda items for future meetings
12.Matters Not Reasonably Anticipated by the Chair
13.Next Finance Committee Meeting
14.Adjournment
Date Posted:Date Revised:Received by Town Clerk:
2/13/23
EXHIBIT `A' —SPECIAL TOWN MEETING SAVE WING ISLAND ARTICI SfddO SJlti213 NMOJ.
PETITION OF 200 REGISTERED VOTERS.
F2N6JN\lf'
1. To see if the Town will vote to adopt the following:
BBARRO3E
No funds previously appropriated by the Town shall be expended by the Town in any
way, including without limitation for staff time, or to pay any consultant or professional
or outside contractor, for any design, permitting, construction, or promoting in any way
of a boardwalk to Wing Island, or other re -design or modification of the existing access
to Wing Island, provided that any invoice for payment submitted by such consultant or
professional or outside contractor prior to the date of the warrant for this Special Town
Meeting may be paid from sums previously appropriated or grants or gifts previously
received; nor shall the Treasurer approve for payment any warrant for payment approved
by the Select Board that includes an authorization for payment of any sums that would be
in violation of this Article.
It is further the sense of the Town Meeting to the Select Board, and the Select Board is
hereby advised by the Town Meeting, that, no grants or gifts received by the Town which
the Select Board is authorized by law to accept or expend, shall be expended for staff
time, or to pay any consultant or professional or outside contractor, for design,
permitting, construction, or promoting in any way of a boardwalk to Wing Island, or
other re -design or modification of the existing access to Wing Island, or to take any other
action relative thereto.
EXPLANATION: ---No Boardwalk to Wing Island, nor any modification to the existing
access, has been approved by Town Meeting. A member of the Select Board stated at the
last Town Meeting that the Select Board would seek a vote on the Boardwalk at the 2023
annual Town Meeting, and that the Select Board would "take seriously" the result of that
vote. Approval of this article will preclude the Town from spending any Town funds
previously appropriated for such a boardwalk, and shall advise the Select Board that it is
the sense of Town Meeting that no any grants or gifts received in any fiscal year should
be spent on the proposed boardwalk.
2. To see if the Town will vote to transfer the care, custody, and control of the land acquired
by the Town of Brewster pursuant to an Order of Taking dated July 14, 1961 and
recorded on July 28, 1961 in Barnstable Deeds at Book 1123 Page 170 (Wing Island, so-
called) from the Select Board to the Brewster Conservation Commission to be used for
conservation, open space, and passive educational purposes, said land to be managed by
the Conservation Commission for such purposes, or to take any other action relative
thereto.
EXPLANATION: Wing Island was acquired in 1961 by the Town for "the purpose of
a public bathing beach and recreational area". It has been used, however, in the
intervening 62 years primarily as a conservation area. This Article seeks to memorialize
the existing actual use, to redirect the purposes for which Wing Island may be used as
Conservation purposes, and to place Wing Island under the care, custody, and control of
the Conservation Commission under G.L. c. 40 sec. 8C, which directs the uses of
conservation land.
3. To see if the Town will vote to rescind its vote to accept the "2021 Drummer Boy Park
Master Plan" taken under Article 12 of the November 15, 2021 Special Town Meeting or
to take any other action relative thereto.
EXPLANATION: The funding for Phase I of the Drummer Boy Master Plan was
voted down by the Fall 2022 Special Town Meeting. This Master Plan includes
substantial additional paving to the Drummer Boy Park, and in an appendix proposes a
Boardwalk to Wing Island. This Article would rescind the Town Meeting's approval of
the plan, thereby taking away as an argument for the proposed Boardwalk and re -paving
of the Drummer Boy Park the fact that the Town Meeting has approved the plan.
Push Comes To Shove Over Wing Island Boardwalk
25 January 2023
By: Bronwen Walsh
Topics: Conservation , Beach Access
Carl Ahlstrom IV and Liz Perry delivered a 700-signature citizens’ petition for a special election about Wing Island
to the Brewster Town Clerk’s office, Town Manager Peter Lombardi and the select board last Thursday. [PHOTO
COURTESY OF FRIENDS OF WING ISLAND]
Petitioners Force Special Town Meeting, Trust Loses Donation
BREWSTER — A group of adamant residents, many of them Friends of Wing Island members, has
petitioned for a special town meeting well ahead of the May 1 spring town meeting to settle the fate of
the proposed Wing Island boardwalk.
Liz Perry and Carl Ahlstrom IV, whom the group asked to deliver the petition to town hall last Thursday,
also are asking the select board to cease spending any more money on design or developing plans for a
raised boardwalk.
“Because, despite the November Town Meeting, the Select Board is forging ahead with its plans for a
substantial boardwalk(s) to Wing Island, we decided to call a Special Town Meeting,” the petition reads.
“The results were overwhelming! We needed 200 registered voters, and over 700 signed our petition.”
The select board on Monday postponed a public forum about Wing Island scheduled for Jan. 26 until
mid-February at a date and time to be determined, and scheduled the special town meeting for
Monday, March 6, at 6 p.m.
At the same time, the California couple who anonymously donated $1 million to the Brewster
Conservation Trust toward building the boardwalk rescinded their donation to avoid further
divisiveness.
“They said they did not intend for their donation to be controversial,” said Town Manager Peter
Lombardi. “They remain open to providing financial assistance to the town in the future once a
consensus solution is identified.”
Just two weeks ago, in effort to appease boardwalk critics, the select board voted to place the Wing
Island access on the spring town meeting warrant and draft a conservation restriction for the island. The
citizens’ petition would supersede that date by forcing a special town meeting within 45 days.
“We are doing what the town should be doing – trying to preserve a sensitive habitat and one of the last
remaining unspoiled places on Cape Cod,” resident Brenda Locke said.
The former Cape Cod Sea Camps property is “where we should be spending our money – which we don’t
have – on recreational opportunities,” said Locke, who called the boardwalk plans “a horrible example
of a town gone wrong and ignoring its residents.”
“We don’t know what’s going to be on the spring town meeting warrant,” said resident Mary O’Neil,
also a supporter of the Friends of Wing Island, a coalition of residents who incorporated last summer in
opposition to the boardwalk. “We feel like they just haven’t been listening. Even in their select board
meeting, they continue to talk about Wing Island ‘access’ and a boardwalk. It all comes down to
conservation, not recreation.”
O’Neil cited a study by Sue Finnegan, manager of Wing Island Banding Station at Cape Cod Museum of
Natural History, whose environmental studies call Wing Island a critical migration flyway and nesting
home to more than 237 documented bird species, 20 percent of which are considered threatened or ‘of
concern’ if they lose any more habitat.
“Once their habitat is gone, they stop breeding completely,” O’Neil said.
“More foot traffic would have a major detrimental impact on the birds there,” she said. “We feel like
that’s going in the wrong direction. We are so blessed with so many other ways to enjoy the ocean. We
have beaches, we have Nickerson State Park, we have ponds.
“We also have an obligation to protect what we have, protect the environmental integrity of Wing Island
and the marsh surrounding this coastal barrier island. We’re asking for time out before we pave
paradise and put up a parking lot. We do not need another paved walkway,” she said.
Comprised of three articles, the petition calls for the town to stop spending any more money or staff
time on designing boardwalk plans; to memorialize Wing Island for its existing natural use, redirect its
purpose toward conservation and place the island under the custody and control of the conservation
commission; and to rescind the select board’s 2021 approval of the Drummer Boy Park Master Plan,
“that the select board is using as a justification to pave the park and build the boardwalk.”
“We’ve just increasingly become frustrated. They’re not listening,” O’Neil said of the select board. Even
in organizing the Jan. 26 Wing Island public forum, “they are always using language like ‘improving
access.’ They just seem to still be going in that direction.
“And 700 people agree with us,” she added.
A link to the town’s Wing Island project page is on the town’s homepage at: www.brewster-
ma.gov/wing-island-boardwalk-project. Lombardi shared initial results of a new carrying capacity
analysis by Horsley Witten, the Sandwich environmental engineering firm consulting with the town, and
cost estimates for several possible scenarios for future access to the island, at the Jan. 23 select board
meeting.
Perry said Friends of Wing Island has the option of withdrawing their petition if they can reach a better
understanding with the town. That group next meets on Thursday, Feb. 2 at 6 p.m. at the Museum of
Natural History.
Public Forum on Wing Island Access (Feb. 9, 2023)1
Brewster Select Board, Town Manager & Natural Resources Department
Feb. 9, 2023
Access to Brewster’s Wing Island:
An Update & Review of Options
Public Forum on Wing Island Access (Feb. 9, 2023)2
Forum Purpose & Overview
Presentation
Background & Stakeholders
History of Wing Island Access & Review of Current
Conditions
Regulatory Considerations & Options for Continued
Access to Wing Island
Carrying Capacity Analysis
Potential Boardwalk Visibility & Aesthetics
Construction Estimates & Gift Offer Update
Citizens Petitions & March 2023 Special Town Meeting
Conservation Restriction
Community Input
Residents are invited to ask questions and make comments
Town of Brewster
Forum Purpose
Provide factual information so residents can make informed decisions about Wing Island
access
Public Forum on Wing Island Access (Feb. 9, 2023)3
The Issue: Access to Wing Island
The plank walkway crossing the marsh to Wing
Island:
Was intended to reduce harm from foot traffic on the
saltmarsh
Was approved for temporary, seasonal use in 1992
Is harmful to the marsh
Is submerged twice daily at high tides making crossing
unsafe or impossible
Is unstable/unsafe and does not comply with Federal
law (Americans with Disabilities Act)
Must be retrieved by Town staff & reinstalled after some
tide/storm events
Flooded Plank Crossing
Foot Traffic Harm to Marsh
Town of Brewster
Town of Brewster
Public Forum on Wing Island Access (Feb. 9, 2023)4
Where We Are Today
Past Activities
Residents requested better Wing Island access & Drummer Boy Park improvements (1990s–present)
Town proposed improved access to Wing Island with a raised walkway (2018)
Town Meeting approved funding to advance design & permitting for improved Wing Island access (2021)
Town consulted with state regulators on potential options and requirements (Spring/Summer 2022)
Town presented initial boardwalk concept to residents at public forum (Aug. 2022)
Town made changes to initial concept in response to public input (Sept./Oct. 2022)
Town invited Museum personnel to take part in Wing Island site visit (Nov. 2022)
Town gathered more data that public requested - carrying capacity & cost estimates (Dec. 2022)
Select Board pledged to bring articles to Town Meeting regarding future Wing Island access (Nov. 2022)
and to place a conservation restriction on Wing Island (Dec. 2022)
Citizens petition submitted to call Special Town Meeting on Wing Island (Jan. 2023)
Now
Town presents updated information & invites further public input
Next
Special Town Meeting on Wing Island on Mar. 6, 2023 at 6pm, Stony Brook School
Annual Town Meeting on May 1, 2023 at 6pm, Stony Brook School
Public Forum on Wing Island Access (Feb. 9, 2023)5
Stakeholders & Participants
State of
Massachusetts
Brewster
Conservation
Trust
Brewster
Conservation
Commission
Cape Cod
Museum of
Natural
History
Brewster
Dept. of
Natural
Resources
Brewster
Fire &
Rescue
Brewster
Police
Department
Friends of
Wing Island Brewster
Residents
Brewster
Historical
Society
WING
ISLAND
ACCESS
Horsley
Witten Group
Town
Meeting
Voters
Select Board
& Town
Management
Brewster
Visitors
Public Forum on Wing Island Access (Feb. 9, 2023)6
The Decision-makers
Town Meeting voters will determine how future access to Wing
Island is managed and how Wing Island is protected.
Town of Brewster
Public Forum on Wing Island Access (Feb. 9, 2023)7
Wing Island Access History: Road
“…gravel and fill dike was constructed
around 1806 to provide access to the
saltworks which dotted the edge of the
salt marsh (there were 60 or 70 thousand
feet of salt works in Brewster at that
time)”1
“In the 1800s there was a road (just to the
west of the boardwalk)” 2
Salt Works at Wing Island c. 1875
1 Town of Brewster Notice of Intent, June 1, 1992
2 Dan Zoto, Archeologist, Ten Thousand Years on Wing Island, Lower Cape TV, Oct. 17, 2020
Dennis Historica
l Society Arch
ive
A gravel & dirt causeway was used to access Wing Island in the
1800s–1900s
Public Forum on Wing Island Access (Feb. 9, 2023)8
Wing Island Access History:
Road & Bridge at Paines Creek
Wing Island Acquired by Town of Brewster on July 14, 1961
Brewster’s first open space acquisition 1
Wing Island Road existed in 1961 but became a problem
“When the town bought Wing Island there was still a road that connected it to the
main land and people would drive out to the beach.” 2
“Road required a lot of maintenance to keep it from sinking into the marsh…” 3
Paines Creek Bridge to Wing Island in 1970
A bridge to Wing Island was constructed in 1970 from Paines Creek; it was
demolished by storm & fire within one year of construction. 4, 5
1 Town of Brewster Notice of Intent, June 1, 1992
2, 3 Town of Brewster Land Management Plan, 2011, p. 10.
4 Town of Brewster Notice of Intent, June 1, 1992
5 1995 Town of Brewster Wing Island Management Plan Outline, p. 16.
When Brewster acquired Wing Island, the road remained and the
Town built a bridge
Public Forum on Wing Island Access (Feb. 9, 2023)9
Wing Island Access History:
1980s/1990s Footpath
Foot traffic to Wing Island
Increased across marsh in 1980s into 1990s
Foot traffic impact was documented 1
“increasing adverse impact”
“whole sections of the dike are muddy due to
repeated foot traffic”
“people walk off the dike to the vegetated portion
of the marsh”
“this has caused great harm to the salt marsh”
Salt Marsh Damage Prior to Installation
of Planks (1992)
1 Town of Brewster Notice of Intent, June 1, 1992
Town of Brewster
Public Forum on Wing Island Access (Feb. 9, 2023)10
Wing Island Access History:
Planks & Bridge
Town sought to protect the marsh from foot traffic damage (1992)
Conservation Commission approved Town request for “200 feet of seasonal boardwalk…to
mitigate damage to the dike and adjacent salt marsh created by foot traffic”
Planks approved partway to Wing Island; intended for use May to November only
Wing Island Marsh Bridge (2008)
Town of Brewster
1992 Notice of Intent to Build Seasonal Plank
Path Partway to Wing Island
Planks Approved Here
Public Forum on Wing Island Access (Feb. 9, 2023)11
Overview of Wing Island Area
Public Forum on Wing Island Access (Feb. 9, 2023)12
Current Conditions
Wing Island:
Has a long history of human activity & use
Was an important Town acquisition
Is a treasured Brewster natural resource
Offers rich public education opportunities
Contains numerous habitats
Is heavily used by Cape Cod Museum of Natural
History programs
Is vulnerable to climate change, sea level rise &
human impacts
Is not yet protected by a conservation restriction
Has been accessed by varying strategies over the
years
Town of Brewster
Public Forum on Wing Island Access (Feb. 9, 2023)13
Wing Island Environment
Total size: 122.1 acres
•Bay beach: 11.9 acres
•Uplands: 32.5 acres
•Tidal marshland: 77.7 acres
Habitat includes:
• Forest
• Meadow
• Coastal dunes
• Woody thicket
• Salt marsh
• Beach
• Flats
Town of Brewster
Public Forum on Wing Island Access (Feb. 9, 2023)14
Wing Island Care & Management
Brewster Department of Natural Resources:
Maintains & monitors Wing Island
Protects sensitive habitat areas
Clears walking trail obstructions
Maintains/restores field habitat with mowing & controlled
burns
Maintains planks; retrieves lost planks
Town of Brewster
Public Forum on Wing Island Access (Feb. 9, 2023)15
Evaluating Future Access Options
The Community Needs to Decide How We Will Access Wing Island
Town of Brewster
South End of Present Plank Walkway (Dec. 29, 2022)
Town of Brewster
Public Forum on Wing Island Access (Feb. 9, 2023)16
Why Improve Access to Wing Island?
Community Demographics
In 2022, the Town commissioned a socio-demographic report to gather data to inform
our current and future Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion efforts
Median age of Brewster resident is 57 years old – 45% of our community is 60+
11% of our residents have some form of disability
Brewster’s Age-Friendly Community Action Plan (2018-2023) outlined expected
increases in these demographics in coming years and sought to identify ways in which
the community could better support these populations through expanded services,
programming, and opportunities
Public Access to Conservation Land
Town is required to update our Open Space and Recreation Plan every 7 years in order
to maintain our eligibility for state grant funding to help pay for acquisition of
conservation land
Recent state approval of Brewster’s updated plan was delayed by 2 years due, in part,
to our current lack of sufficient accessibility to Town conservation properties
Town was required to develop an Americans with Disabilities Action (ADA) Transition
Plan, identifying planned improvements at certain locations
Public Forum on Wing Island Access (Feb. 9, 2023)17
Sea Level Rise & Climate Change Impacts
A Major Threat to Our Salt Marsh
“Salt marshes are drowning” due to the effects of
climate change. 1
Climate change stressors include increasing drought,
increasing storminess, sea level rise & ocean
acidification. 2
Sea level rise is projected to increase by about 2 feet
by 2060 and 4 feet by 2080 3
1, 2 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Climate Change in Coastal Environments, available: https://www.epa.gov/cre/climate-change-coastal-environments
3 Brewster Coastal Adaptation Strategy (2016)
Wing Island at King Tide
(January 2023)
Paines Creek (March 2018)
Public Forum on Wing Island Access (Feb. 9, 2023)18
Laws & Regulations Applying to Wing
Island Access
Federal Law
Americans with Disabilities Act
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Sec. 404 of Federal Clean Water Act
State Law
Mass. Wetlands Protection Act (310 CMR 10:00: Wetlands
Protection Act Regulations)
Mass. Public Waterfront Act (310 CMR 9:00: Ch. 91 Waterways
Regulations)
Mass. Environmental Policy Act (MEPA)
Mass. Endangered Species Act (MESA)
Mass. Water Quality Certification under Sec. 401 of Federal Clean
Water Act
Old Kings Highway Regional Historic District Act
Brewster Regulations
Brewster Wetlands Protection By-law (Conservation Commission)
Conservation Restriction on Wing Island (Quivett) Marsh
Held by Mass. Dept. of Conservation and Recreation
Town of Brewster
Walkway from Wing Island
(Dec. 29, 2022)
Public Forum on Wing Island Access (Feb. 9, 2023)19
Option 1: Elevated Walkway to Wing Island
& Drummer Boy (L-shaped)
L-Shaped walkway would:
Lessen negative impacts on marsh
Provide safe/improved access for
walkers not hampered by tides
Provide access in compliance with
Federal ADA requirements
Encourage visitors to park at Drummer
Boy Park; lessen improper parking at
Museum
Improve emergency access to Wing
Island
Allow continued Museum programs on
Wing Island
L-Shaped walkway would:
Be the most expensive option
Create visual changes in marsh vista
Likely increase foot traffic due to no
tidal barriers & easier connection to
Drummer Boy Park parking
PRO CON
Public Forum on Wing Island Access (Feb. 9, 2023)20
Option 2: Elevated Walkway to Wing
Island (current route)
Straight walkway would:
Lessen negative impacts on marsh
Provide safe/improved access for walkers not
hampered by tides
Add marsh overlook at Cedar Ridge Reserve
Be less expensive than Option 1
Provide access in compliance with Federal
ADA requirements
Improve emergency access to Wing Island
Create less visual impact change on marsh
vista than Option 1
Allow continued Museum programs on Wing
Island
Straight walkway would:
Create longer route to island than Option 1
Be less likely to encourage Wing Island
visitors to park on Town property at
Drummer Boy Park
Likely increase foot traffic due to improved
access & no tidal barriers (although less
than Option 1)
Create visual changes in marsh vista
Fail to improve connections between Wing
Island, Cedar Ridge Reserve, Drummer Boy
Park, Windmill Village, & Museum
CONPRO
Public Forum on Wing Island Access (Feb. 9, 2023)21
Option 3:
Maintain Current At-Grade Planks
Maintaining current planks would:
Continue status quo
Avoid expense of installing & maintaining
a raised walkway
Ensure Museum programming could be
maintained
Avoid any changes to marsh vista
Limit changes to existing foot traffic to
island
Maintaining current planks would:
Harm the marsh
Fail to address increased usage since
original planks installed
Limit island access based on tidal
restrictions & difficult footing
Be less likely to encourage Wing Island
visitors to park on Town property at
Drummer Boy Park
Make public safety access slower &
more difficult
PRO CON
Note: Current planks do not have a Chapter 91 license from MA Department of
Environmental Protection (Public Waterfront Act)
Public Forum on Wing Island Access (Feb. 9, 2023)22
Option 4:
Remove Existing At-Grade Planks
Removal of planks would:
Bring Town into compliance with
Ch. 91
Avoid expense of installing &
maintaining a raised walkway
Avoid any changes to marsh vista
Reduce overall foot traffic out to
island
Removal of planks would:
Result in foot traffic directly on
marsh, causing significant harm to
resource area (as seen in 1980s)
Make public access to Wing Island
very challenging
Make continued Museum programs
to Wing Island highly questionable
Make public safety access much
slower & more difficult
PRO CON
Public Forum on Wing Island Access (Feb. 9, 2023)23
Option 5:
New At-Grade Walkway
Not viable Town cannot secure permits from
State & Federal regulatory agencies
to construct this type of structure in a
wetland
PRO CON
Public Forum on Wing Island Access (Feb. 9, 2023)24
Wing Island Carrying Capacity
Wing Island Carrying Capacity Analysis Conducted (Winter 2022) 1
Purpose: Calculate number of visitors Wing Island can sustainably manage without
harmful impacts (considering that utilization may be increased if a boardwalk is built)
Visitor Sources: Vehicles parked at Drummer Boy Park & Museum of Natural History
Museum sends ~10,000 visitors to Wing Island annually (an average of 28/day)
Museum maximum visitors: Up to 100/day in summer
Natural Factors that Limit Wing Island Access:
Weather (temperatures, wind, precipitation)
Wing Island trail conditions; some trails are less accessible to certain users
Distance
Parking capacities
Conclusion: Wing Island can accommodate the predicted volume of visitors
& avoid degradation of resources that could be caused by overuse.
1 Horsley Witten Group, Carrying Capacity Analysis for Wing Island, Town of Brewster, Feb. 2022
Public Forum on Wing Island Access (Feb. 9, 2023)25
Cape Cod Museum of Natural History
The Museum:
Offers programs that introduce people to Wing Island
Brings over 10,000 people/year to Wing Island
Charges fees & produces revenue from Wing Island programs
Long-time partnership with Town to share resource is not formally
documented
Cape Cod Times
Public Forum on Wing Island Access (Feb. 9, 2023)26
Wing Island Beach Use With a Boardwalk
Unlikely Wing Island beach use would increase substantially with a boardwalk
Distance from parking to Wing Island beach: 2/3 to 3/4 of a mile
Spruce Hill Beach: Shorter walk at 0.5 miles (with limited parking), but is very lightly used
Wing Island trails: Uneven terrain not feasible for all walkers; no changes planned
If I-shaped Boardwalk
Drummer Boy to Wing Island beach:
0.74 miles
If L-shaped Boardwalk
Drummer Boy to Wing Island beach:
0.63 miles
Compare: Spruce Hill Beach
Parking off Main Street to beach:
0.43 miles
Public Forum on Wing Island Access (Feb. 9, 2023)27
Carrying Capacity Summary
Carrying Capacity & Projected Use with a Boardwalk
*Estimate reflects factors that make visiting Wing Island less desirable; these include extreme high/low
temperatures, rainfall/snowfall, wind, & trails with significant slope.
**Based on 4 visitors in each Drummer Boy parked vehicle plus 28 to 100 Museum visitors each day.
Analysis: Estimated increased use would not negatively impact Wing Island.
• Maximum Wing Island Carrying Capacity (Peak Use) = 1,581 daily visitors
• Maximum Projected Wing Island Visitors with Boardwalk = 415 daily visitors
• Current Maximum Estimated Wing Island Visitors via Planks = 353 daily visitors
Public Forum on Wing Island Access (Feb. 9, 2023)28
Carrying Capacity Recommendations
Remove/deter access to unofficial trails with signage and/or barriers
Protect rare species habitat during breeding season
Revegetate larger bare areas of dunes; restore functionality of dunes as
protective barrier
Increase educational signage for public awareness of island’s sensitive
nature on trails & on possible boardwalk
Relocate bird banding signage to deter visitors
Restrict visitors to on-foot access only
Restrict dogs in certain seasons, similar to beach restrictions
Enact a conservation restriction on Wing Island to identify allowable &
prohibited uses
Consider trash receptacles or implement strict “carry in/carry out” policy
Undermanagement can cause environmental harm: Important to maintain sufficient staff to
manage the resource, monitor for emerging needs & allow proactive planning.
Visitor education is important: Degradation worsens with lack of education on appropriate
behavior and activities.
Recommendations to reduce harmful Wing Island impacts:
Town of Brewster
Public Forum on Wing Island Access (Feb. 9, 2023)29
Boardwalk Visibility & Aesthetics
A Boardwalk to Wing Island Would Be Visible:
To vehicles westbound on 6A for ~5 seconds
To a few abutters & adjacent shopping plaza
From Wing Island (looking south toward Museum)
A Boardwalk to Wing Island Would Not Be Visible:
From Museum or eastbound vehicles on 6A
From Drummer Boy Park
Depiction of an elevated boardwalk to Wing Island looking northwest from Route 6A
Public Forum on Wing Island Access (Feb. 9, 2023)30
Estimated Costs of Boardwalk Options
Option 1: L-shaped boardwalk $3.0 million
Including new connection to Drummer Boy Park
Option 2A: I-shaped boardwalk $1.9 million
Including new marsh overlook at Cedar Ridge Reserve
Option 2B:I-shaped boardwalk $1.8 million
No new marsh overlook at Cedar Ridge Reserve
* All include conservative pricing assumptions and 30% contingency
Public Forum on Wing Island Access (Feb. 9, 2023)31
Update on Gift Offer
Background
After learning the Town was considering a possible boardwalk to Wing Island,
Leonard & Pamela Schaeffer offered $1,030,000 donation via Brewster Conservation
Trust to help fund design, permitting, & construction costs
Arrangement was outlined in gift agreement approved by Select Board in August
2021
The donors initially preferred anonymity to preserve their privacy
Update
The donors recently contacted the Town expressing interest in terminating their offer
at this time
Select Board plans to formally vote to terminate gift agreement on February 13
Donors are willing to revisit their offer when & if the community comes to consensus
on future Wing Island access
Public Forum on Wing Island Access (Feb. 9, 2023)32
Citizens Petitioned Special Town
Meeting on Wing Island
Select Board Plan (announced Nov. & Dec. 2022)
The Brewster Select Board planned to bring specific warrant articles on Wing
Island access & Wing Island preservation to Annual Town Meeting in May
2023
Citizens Petition
However, the Town received a citizens petition calling for a Special Town
Meeting 2 months earlier
Special Town Meeting will be held Monday, March 6 at 6PM (sign-in starting
at 5PM) at Stony Brook Elementary School
Public Forum on Wing Island Access (Feb. 9, 2023)33
March 2023 STM: Article 1
Citizens Petition Article 1
Seeks to prohibit any further expenditures of Town funds and staffing
resources on Wing Island boardwalk planning, permitting, or
construction activities
Also seeks to advise the Select Board not to accept any grants or
gifts related to a Wing Island boardwalk
Public Forum on Wing Island Access (Feb. 9, 2023)34
March 2023 STM: Article 1 (cont’d)
Town Notes on Article 1
Town has only worked on publicly discussed and agreed upon tasks
since October 2022 (carrying capacity analysis, visual simulations &
construction estimates) – not on design or permitting
Town previously entered into contracts for consulting services and
grant agreements with Mass. Dept. of Conservation & Recreation and
has legal obligations to comply with the terms of those agreements
To date, Town has:
Spent $50k in funding appropriated by Town Meeting in November 2021
Spent ~$20k in previously gifted funds
Has not spent any of $50k in state grant funds
Gift agreement for construction funds will be terminated next week
Per town counsel, vote will reflect the sense of this Town Meeting
Public Forum on Wing Island Access (Feb. 9, 2023)35
March 2023 STM: Article 2
Citizens Petition Article 2
Seeks to transfer the care, custody, and control of Wing Island from
the Select Board to the Conservation Commission and to change
permitted uses from a public bathing beach and recreational area to
conservation, open space, and passive educational purposes
Does not seek to place a conservation restriction on Wing Island
Public Forum on Wing Island Access (Feb. 9, 2023)36
March 2023 STM: Article 2 (cont’d)
Town Notes on Article 2
Transfer of Article 97 protected land to another entity requires 2/3 Town
Meeting vote & 2/3 state legislative approval via Home Rule Petition
Change of use of Article 97 land also requires Home Rule Petition
Transfer and/or change of use of Article 97 land also requires a series of
procedural actions, including an alternatives analysis
Per town counsel, Article 2 is flawed because it does not authorize the Select
Board to file a Home Rule Petition – accordingly, vote will reflect the sense of
this Town Meeting
Select Board planned to bring Home Rule Petition article to May Annual Town
Meeting that could transfer control of the property & seek state approval to
place a conservation restriction (CR) on Wing Island
State legislative process typically takes 1 to 2 years to complete
Would provide sufficient time to complete baseline ecological assessment
& develop management plan for CR
Public Forum on Wing Island Access (Feb. 9, 2023)37
March 2023 STM: Article 3
Citizens Petition Article 3
Seeks to rescind the Town Meeting vote of November 2021 to accept
the updated Drummer Boy Master Plan, which referenced a potential
boardwalk to Wing Island from the adjacent Cedar Ridge Reserve
property
Town Notes on Article 3
All Drummer Boy Park design & permitting work was stopped following
the November 2022 Town Meeting vote against appropriating funds for
Phase I construction
Per town counsel, vote will reflect the sense of this Town Meeting
Depending on result, potential to bring an amended version of Drummer
Boy Park Master Plan to a future Town Meeting
Public Forum on Wing Island Access (Feb. 9, 2023)38
Long-term Wing Island Protection with a
Conservation Restriction
Most Town conservation land is under the care, custody, and control of the
Conservation Commission: Provides general oversight
A CR is a legally enforceable agreement: Ensures permanent protection of a
specific conservation area while permitting limited land uses consistent with
conservation values.
Must be held by a responsible third-party (ie. not Conservation Commission)
Wing Island: Originally acquired as “public bathing beach and recreational area”
State Constitution Article 97 provides certain protections to recreation land
but does not preclude numerous uses
Brewster: Has 75+ parcels with CRs
Mass. Dept. of Conservation & Recreation: Holds CR on ~90 acres of marsh and
beach surrounding Wing Island
The Town wishes to establish a Conservation
Restriction (CR) on Wing Island
Public Forum on Wing Island Access (Feb. 9, 2023)39
Long-term Wing Island Protection with a
Conservation Restriction
A CR on Wing Island:
Would permanently prevent development of the
island while permitting necessary land conservation
efforts
Would require both Town Meeting & state legislation
approvals (via Home Rule Petition) since it involves
disposition of a property interest
Would require an alternatives analysis
Would require a baseline ecological assessment & a
detailed management plan
Could memorialize affirmative rights of Museum to
provide educational programming & benefits to Town
Public Forum on Wing Island Access (Feb. 9, 2023)40
Public Comment
What are your thoughts on future access to Wing Island and
its long-term preservation?
Public Forum on Wing Island Access (Feb. 9, 2023)41
In Summary
This Public Forum
Described options so Brewster residents can evaluate the choices
Sought feedback from Brewster residents about their ideas &
preferences
Next Steps
Residents can email comments to wingisland@brewster-ma.gov
March 6, 2023: Special Town Meeting – Citizens Petition articles
March 2023: Annual Town Meeting warrant closes
May 1, 2023: Annual Town Meeting – Potential Select Board article(s)
Thank you for taking part.
Archive d: Friday, February 10, 2023 10:31:07 AM
From: Lauren F. Goldberg
Se nt: Mon, 6 Feb 2023 23:53:19 +0000ARC
To: Peter Lombardi
Cc: Gregg J. Corbo; Amy E. Morin
Subje ct: FW: Wing Island Follow-up
Se ns itivity: N ormal
Attachme nts :
HW_engineering_for_Wing_Island-HWsigned 02.22.pdf; Wing_Island_Change_order 1 10.19.22.pdf; Executed 20211228_Wing Island Boardwalk Design
and Permitting_P22-3472-G29A Contract&NTP.pdf; DCR Rec Trails Grant Agreement Wing Island Boardwalk Signed 12.21.pdf; Drummer_Boy_Phase_I -
HWsigned.pdf;
Peter, in my opinion, eac h of the c itizen petitioned articles is flawed in certain respec ts. I have reviewed the petitioned articles and related materials, and the attached
doc uments that y ou forwarded.
Article 1 s eeks to prohibit the Town from spending money previously appropriated for the W ing Is land Boardwalk project.
Moot; Not s pecific . The artic le does not identify any particular appropriations to whic h it will apply and is general in nature. As I understand the facts , the Town has
already s pent all of the money the Town appropriated by Town Meeting s pecifically for this project, i.e., $50K, and the article would be moot with regard to such
expenditures. Further, the article does not specifically referenc e any partic ular appropriations , but nevertheless purports to limit the Town’s ability to ex pend
departmental and other operating funds in connection with this project. In my opinion, the article is not in proper form to accomplish the same. Following the
appropriation of funds for the FY2023 operating budget, such funds may be ex pended cons is tent with the purpos es specified. A general and unspec ific article c annot
limit Town offic ials from expending previously authorized funding in a manner c onsistent with such appropriation. For all these reasons, in my opinion, this portion of the
artic le is flawed in that it does not identify the particular appropriations to whic h it applies and in my opinion, a vote on the article as written would provide only a “s ense
of the meeting” on this topic .
Selec t Board has J urisdic tion Over Expenditure of Gifts and Grants . W ith regard to ex penditure of grant funds, as the petitioners recognize, Town Meeting has no
authority to res tric t or restrain the same, in my opinion. In ac cord with G.L. c .44, §53A, the Select Board, in c onnection with this projec t , has exc lusive juris diction over
whether to acc ept and expend gift or grant funds from private individuals or entities , or from the state. As s uc h, any vote taken under this artic le with regard to such
matters would cons titute only a “sense of the meeting”, and would not be legally binding on the Select Board. Thus, in my opinion, even if Town Meeting were to
approve this article, the Selec t Board would not be prohibited from using gift or grant funds for the purposes for which they have been given, inc luding paying for any work
performed before the termination of the Horsely W itten Group c ontrac t at iss ue.
Town Has Legal Ob ligation to Pay for W ork Performed Prior t o Contrac t Termination. The artic le provides further that if Town Meeting approves the artic le, invoic es
“received by the date of the warrant for this Special Town Meeting” could s till be paid. In my opinion, however, the Town has a legal obligation to pay for work undertak en
at its request and may only terminate a contract without penalty in acc ord with the relevant terms . I have reviewed the Horsely W itten Group contract (attac hed) and
Sec tion 13(b) provides explicitly that the Town may terminate the contract with 10 days notic e. Further, it s tates that the Town will be res pons ible for payment for all
work performed until the termination date. Failure to pay for such work would, in my opinion, c onstitute a breach of contract and could ex pose the Town to s ignificant
liability.
Article 2 s eeks to trans fer the W ing Island land, acquired by a taking in 1961 for “public beac h and rec reation area” purposes, from the Selec t Board to the Conservation
Commiss ion for “c onservation, open space and passive education” purpos es . The petitioners s tate that this is, in fact, the manner in whic h the land has been held and
used s ince its ac quis ition, and, therefore, that they seek to align formal custody and c ontrol with the c urrent use of the property. Thus, t he ques tion aris es as to
whether such land is subjec t to Article 97 constitutional protec tions .
In the event that Artic le 97 protec tions do not apply to this land, in my opinion, a two-step proc es s is required to make such a transfer. In acc ord with G.L. c.40, §15A,
the board with custody and c ontrol of the property, here, the Selec t Board, must determine that the land is no longer needed for the purposes for which it is held.
Further, Town Meeting must, by a 2/3 vote, approve the transfer. Cas e law es tablishes that there is no required s equence in which these events oc cur. Board of
Selec tmen of Hanson v. Lindsay, 444 Mass. 502 (2005).
In Artic le 97, the Legislature has declared a public purpose of protecting the cons ervation, development and utilization of the agricultural, mineral, fores t, water, air and
other natural resourc es of the Commonwealth, by prohibiting land and easements ac quired or tak en for such purposes to be used for anot her purpose ex cept as
approved by laws enac ted by a two-thirds vote of both houses of the Legislature. Public property may gain the protections of Article 97 when it is tak en or acquired for
the purpos e of protecting the cons ervation, development and utilization of the agricultural, mineral, fores t, water, air and other natural resourc es of the Commonwealth, or
when it is spec ific ally designated for such a purpose through a deed or res tric tion recorded against the property. Hanson, 444 Mass. 502. The determination of whether
property held by the Town is protected by Article 97 requires a highly fac t-spec ific determination regarding the manner in which the propert y was ac quired, how it has
been used, and ac tions tak en to prevent it from being used for other purpos es . Questions involving Article 97 are often subject to reasonable differenc es of opinion, and
the Supreme Judicial Court’s interpretation of the Article has been evolving over time to ex pand its reach. That being said, based on my careful cons ideration of the
fac ts at is sue in this matter, in my opinion the land at issue is lik ely to be found by a reviewing court to be protected by Article 97.
Here, the property was tak en over 50 years ago for “public beach and recreation area” purpos es . Although it is arguable that the 1961 vot e is not entirely c lear as to
what is meant by “rec reation”, I understand that the Town has us ed this land s ince it was ac quired for c onservation, open space, and pass ive education purpos es . I
unders tand further that various Town documents detail the continued use of the property for s uc h purpos es , the matter has been debated at numerous meetings and
public hearings , and the use of the property has been considered by Town Meeting on various oc casions. The Supreme Judicial Court in its dec is ion in Smith v. City of
W es tfield, 478 Mass . 49 (2017) ex panded the reach of Article 97 to inc lude land that was not acquired for Article 97 purposes, but that was subs equently permanently
dedic ated for s uc h a us e. Specifically, in that case, the Court held that land may be subjec t to Artic le 97 where a city or town dedicates land as a public park through a
c lear and unequivocal intent to dedicate the land permanently as a public park and where the public ac cepts such use by actually using t he land as a public park . The
Smith c ourt found that this standard was met where the City actually us ed land for play ground purpos es for more than sixty years, it formally trans ferred the property to
the playground commission and, most significantly, by acc epting federal grant funds to rehabilitate the playground, it agreed that the property would be permanently
restricted for that use. In this case, it appears, therefore, in my opinion, the land was acquired and used for Article 97 purpos es .
In order to trans fer an interest in land protected by Article 97, there are three s eparate steps that must occur – a determination by the c us todian of the land that that the
land is no longer needed for its current purpose, approval of the transfer by a 2/3 vote of Town Meeting, and approval by a 2/3 vote by both houses of the General Court.
The article is flawed, in my opinion, in that it does not authoriz e the Selec t Board to file a petition for special legislation. In addition, note that rec ent legislation has
added additional requirements a community must undertake or meet in connec tion with a petition for special legislation to change the custody or use of Article 97 land,
which legislation expands the requirements of the long-establis hed EOEA policy . See here to review the text of Chapter 274 of the Acts of 2022, whic h inserted a new
§5A in Chapter 3 of the General Laws.
Article 3 proposes to rescind the November 15, 2021 Special Town Meeting vote under Article 12 to accept the 2021 Drummer Boy Park Master Plan. In my opinion,
the vote to “acc ept” the 2021 Drummer Boy Master Plan reflec ted the sens e of the November 15, 2021 Special Town Meeting (ac ceptanc e or approval of a master plan is
not required by state or local law) as to the master plan. The current Town Meeting may, of course, elect to indicate it no longer s upports the 2021 Drummer Boy Park
Mas ter Plan, that it rejects the plan, or to refer that plan bac k to committee for further consideration. A vote under this article would, in my opinion, c onstitute a sense of
the 2023 Special Town Meeting as to the 2021 Drummer Boy Master Plan.
Pleas e let me k now if there are further questions on thes e iss ues.
Very truly y ours,
Lauren
Lauren F. Goldberg, Esq.KP | LAW
101 Arc h Street, 12th Floor
Bos ton, MA 02110
O: (617) 654-1759 **dial 9999 if prompted for a 4-digit code
F: (617) 654 1735
C: (617) 548 7622
lgoldberg@k-plaw.com
www.k-plaw.c om
(617) 556-0007
This mes s age and the documents attached to it, if any, are intended only f or the use of the addressee and may contain inf ormation that is PRIV ILEGED and CONFIDENTIAL and/or may contain
A TTORNEY WORK PRODUCT. If you are not the intended recipient, y ou are hereby notif ied that any dissemination of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you hav e received this communication in
error, please delete all electronic copies of this message and its attac hments, if any , and destroy any hard copies you may have created and notif y me immediately.