Loading...
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.