HomeMy Public PortalAboutPond Parcel Planning -- 2024-01-23 Minutes \\\00'a V� F tips ///
Town of Brewster Select Boaarr
ffice of:
Seelect
d
_ N 2198 Main Street Town Manager
Brewster, MA 02631-1898
Phone: (508)896-3701
-
<�_ www.brewster-ma.gov
80.9p IR
lillllll'1
MINUTES OF THE JOINT MEETING WITH THE SELECT BOARD, POND PROPERTY PLANNING COMMITTEE&
BAY PROPERTY PLANNING COMMITTEE
DATE: January 23, 2024
TIME: 4:00 PM
PLACE: 2198 Main Street, Rooms A & B
Select Board Participants: Chair Chatelain, Selectperson Whitney, Selectperson Bingham
Select Board Remote Participation:Selectperson Chaffee,Selectperson Hoffmann
PPPC Participants: Chair Wilcock, Cyndi Baran, Steve Ferris, Cindy Bingham,Jan Crocker, Katie Gregoire,
Elizabeth Taylor
PPPC Remote Participation: Kari Hoffmann, Chris Williams, Chris Ellis,
PPPC Liaisons:Anne Weirich, Donna Kalinick, Amy Henderson, Tino Kamarck, Melissa Lowe
BPPC Participants: Chair Bebrin, David Whitney,Thomas Wingard, Peter Johnson, Caroline McCarley, Katie
Miller-Jacobus, Clare O'Connor-Rice,John Phillips
BPPC Remote Participation: Mary Chaffee, Karl Fryzel
Town Staff:Town Manager Peter Lombardi, Assistant Town Manager Donna Kalinick, Recreation Director
Mike Gradone
Reed Hilderbrand Staff: Elizabeth Randall and Madeleine Aronson
Absent: PPPC Member Tim Hackert, BPPC Member Patricia Hughes
Call to Order, Declaration of a(uorum and Meetin Participation and Recording Statements
Chair Chatelain called the Select Board meeting to order at 4:05pm and declared an in-person quorum. The
Meeting Participation and Recording Statements were read by Chair Chatelain.
Chair Wilcock called the Pond Property Planning Committee to order at 4:06pm and declared an in-person
quorum.
Chair Bebrin called the Bay Property Planning Committee to order at 4:06pm and declared an in-person
quorum.
Review and Discuss Preliminary Phasiniz Plans for Bay &Pond Pro erties
Elizabeth Randall (Reed Hilderbrand) provided an overview of where we are in the process,currently in the
comprehensive planning phase where the plans will be refined to be presented at Town Meeting in May to
be voted on. Decisions made at this meeting will provide Reed Hilderbrand with the information needed to
prepare the presentation for the final forum that will be held on February 15. The presentation tonight will
include preliminary phasing and key questions about a Community Center, Housing and Future Municipal
Uses.
The overall goal of the preliminary phasing plans is to not only provide the Town with implementation but
to convey to the community that they will not happen all at once. Phasing is meant to help alleviate
financial concerns. Each phase is anticipated to take approximately 2 years and would begin after the plans
Joint Meeting 1.23.2024 www.brewster-ma.gov Page 1 of 12
`\\\`\'g�01'0'1U11tNlglll////llJ�//moi
aEws Town of Brewster Office°f
'( a gLDER'B i��_ 9 0
Select Board
o., 9p$ 2198 Main Street Town Manager
3 a y= Brewster, MA 02631-1898
c _ Phone: (508)896-3701
www.brewster-ma.gov
are adopted at Town Meeting.The phasing approach is organized into five general categories:Approvals,
studies, and design,Site preparation and infrastructure, Recreation and community use, Housing and
Ecology. The phasing plans will approximate the timelines relating to potential Community Center, Housing
and Future Municipal Uses.At the final forum, each phase will include an estimated cost and related
financial impacts.
Ms. Aronson started with phasing for the Bay property:
• Phase 1—targeted for 2025-2027 with the goal to open as much of the property to the community
as possible.
o The focus is on roadway improvements, walking trails,flexible open spaces, and renovations
to the outdoor pavilion.
o Includes important regulatory steps such as the comprehensive plan approval, funding
approval and overlay districts.
o The community center feasibility study would begin in this phase, if applicable.
o Site prep and infrastructure including building, demo, and removal as well as required
infrastructure including stormwater management.
o Building structural analysis and maintenance of existing buildings.
o Selective housing renovation of existing buildings.
o Begin the pollinator meadow and dune restoration and initial woodland/tree plantings.
• Phase 2-targeted for 2027-2029 with the goal to continue to increase community access.
o Addition of tennis courts and picnic areas.
o Construction of the Mass Audubon Nature Center and the associated parking.
• Phase 3—targeted for 2029-2031 continues to add on more community amenities.
o Playground, picnic areas, community gardens and boathouse renovations for concession and
events.
o Kickoff the community housing feasibility study (if decided on).
o Design of the Community Center (if applicable).
• Phase 4—targeted for 2031-2023
o Focus on the remaining building renovations including the administration building and the
community cabins and associated parking.
o The Town would begin to establish a framework for Future Municipal Uses (if applicable).
• Phase 5—targeted for 2033-2035
o Potential Community Center and the associated parking.
o Community Housing Comprehensive permit.
• Phase 6 (dates TBD)
o Community Housing to be built.
o Existing beach parking removal and dune restoration.
Ms. Randall noted the dates for each phase are in two-year blocks, within each phase, projects and
financing would need to be approved.The idea is to structure the phases so the approvals, studies, and
design work is going on constantly, but the construction work can only happen in the off season. The time
Joint Meeting 1.23.2024 www.brewster-ma.gov Page 2 of 12
`\\`\'oo loik 1Eilw1s�///,%
Town of Brewster Office of:
..OQ%E�DEq"e9`9 Select Board
=2 �= 2198 Main Street Town Manager
D= Brewster, MA 02631-1898
° Phone: (508) 896-3701
www.brewster-ma.gov
frames for each phasing will be more explicit at the community forum, as suggested by Selectperson
Hoffmann.
Members of the Bay Property Planning Committee had the opportunity to comment and ask questions:
e Member Wingard asked why the community gardens are scheduled in phase 3,when it would
enhance the community involvement and at minimal cost? Ms. Aronson replied that with phase 1,
the goal is to make sure to get people onto the site and is currently maxed out what is feasible for
the Town to do at one time.
Mr. Lombardi shared that this is the first take on a phasing plan, and it is important to know this is still a
work in progress. Initially phase 1 had an unmanageable number of projects, part of the reason why the
community gardens were pushed to a later phase. Regarding the tennis courts, we feel this is a pressing
issue for the Recreation Commission and placing them in phase 2 helps relieve the pressure. Mr. Lombardi
added that what is brought to Town meeting as phases are informational,the plan isn't going to
prescriptively say we have to bring a certain project in a certain year. Ms. Kal€nick stated, as the
procurement officer for the Town, each one of these requires a certain number of steps and all require
some sort of bidding or procurement which takes time. Adding that the Town will be working on Phase 1 of
the Pond at the same time. Mr. Lombardi stated that we quickly realized what a challenge this would be to
fit everything in during the off season, and thus have compressed windows of time.
• Member Miller-Jacobus appreciates the focus of getting people on the property in phase 1 and the
fact that trails are included reflects the community's feedback.
® Member McCarley references to the Community Center and Housing is applicable depending on the
votes that are taken,this would need to be changed relative to the decision made. She appreciates
the difficulty and complexity of all of this and asked if Mass Audubon has seen the scheduling?She
also added that she was surprised to see the beach parking lot being removed.
o Mr. Lombardi responded that the preliminary phasing has been shared with the partner
organizations' representatives to both committees. Adding that a lot of phase 1 is site work
and infrastructure,which needs to be done first.
0 Chair Bebrin noted that with having some details about phasing hopes our residents look at this and
as we continue to refine the plan and move towards Town Meeting that there is an understanding
that for as much attention and work in getting to this place,there is as many moving pieces and
things to consider inputting together the phasing. We are indeed considering what our Town's
capabilities are in terms of staff power, capacity, and financial impacts. This is all being done
intentionally.
o Mr. Lombardi noted we didn't want to get too far ahead in making assumptions, once we
have that direction,we will be updating the phasing plans and between now and the forum
will be providing some level of detail about financing within each of the phases. Residents
will understand as part of the presentation, order of magnitude, what each phase will cost
for each of the properties.
Joint Meeting 1.23.2024 www.brewster-ma.gov Page 3 of 12
1ott¢Illlllllrfrrsq�ii��/'
ew flown of Brewster Office of:
O 'Of��ueq-B9ztC,Q % Select Board
o- F . 2198 Main Street Town Manager
3 a) = Brewster, MA 02631-1898
Phone: (508) 896-3701
www.brewster-ma.gov
Member O'Connor Rice asked about the difference between the Community Center feasibility study
and the Community Center Design study? Is the feasibility study only for the Community Center on
the Bay Property or a Town wide study?
o Ms. Randall responded that it is specific to the Bay Property and will include a more detailed
analysis of things like traffic, size, community needs, and program types before getting to the
actual design of the building. Mr. Lombardi stated that if there is support for inclusion of the
community center designated area in the plan,the feasibility study will follow. The study will
look at community needs, programs, and activities, trying to define the overall footprint and
program that would be needed to move forward. At the end of Phase 1 and into Phase 2, is a
decision point for the community,whether to move forward with the Community Center on
this property or perhaps pivot to something else.
Mike Gradone expressed a minor concern for the Recreation Department to host summer programming on
the Bay property, would need to have some sort of temporary offices at the location to support all the
programs. Mr. Lombardi shared that the working assumption is that the administration building could be
used by recreation staff in the interim period without major renovations. In moving summer recreation
over, we were expecting the Recreation Department to have a regular presence and based there for the
summer.
Ms. Aronson continued with the phasing for the Pond property:
• Phase 1—targeted for 2025-2027 to enable site access for the community.
o The focus is on roadway improvements,trail improvements, parking areas and beach access.
o Wastewater infrastructure and community housing feasibility studies (if applicable).
• Phase 2—targeted for 2027-2029
o Building removal and renovations.
o Begin housing and wastewater design studies.
• Phase 3—targeted for 2029-2031
o Either housing and wastewater treatment or the Town would begin to establish a framework
for Future Municipal Uses.
• Phase 4—targeted for 2031-2033
o Wastewater treatment to be connected to surrounding residences (if applicable).
Members of the Pond Property Planning Committee had the opportunity to comment and ask questions:
• Member Ferris was surprised when housing would be developed, since it is not the Town that will be
developing the housing, it seems that it could move quicker than what was presented.
o Ms. Randall stated that the goal is to start immediately with the feasibility study, as it is
approved and leads into the design and construction phases there is the potential that the
timeline could change. Ms. Kalinick shared that with permitting, design work and the
financing involved for affordable housing typically takes between 4-6 years. The plan is
reflective of this timeline.
• Member Baran noticed on both the phasing slides and the Future Potential Municipal Uses slides
that a potential public water supply well location has been removed. This was on a plan in the first
Joint Meeting 1.23.2024 www.brewster-ma.gov IPage 4 of 12
FIJI/,
galW 11111111 i 11, /
�\O\P' VIEWS;,�'//
'a
Town of Brewster
Select Board
2198 Main Street
Town Manager
Brewster, MA 02631-1898
0
Phone: (508) 896-3701
www.brewster-ma.gov
SID
forum, and we haven't had the ability to do a full evaluation of the potential for this to be feasible.
Ms. Baran requested that this option be included in the slides and for consideration as it is a
potential option to include a feasibility study for a potential future water supply well. Adding that in
fact the Water Department is going to be requesting approval to use funding at Town Meeting to
hire a consultant to do an updated water system master plan. In this they will be looking at locations
in town where potential future water supplies can be located. Since we don't have the information
on costs estimates for a wastewater treatment facility for a relatively small fraction of the Brewster
population, thinks it would be helpful to have at least a broad-based estimate on the costs before
people are asked to decide.
Member Hoffmann regarding the water well feasibility study, believes that when we had the Water
Commission at a PPPC meeting, he thought that if there was a well on the property that it would
limit the access to the pond because a road couldn't cut through the buffer that would need to be
around the well. Additionally, regarding ADA access to the pond, with the road improvements and
ADA parking, would this also include some kind of path that is appropriate for those who have
mobility issues to the beach.
• Ms. Randall answered that included in the phasing will be an accessible route to the beach in
phase 1.
• Ms. Baran responded that though it was mentioned in the meeting about access to the pond,
it was not definitive. This would be part of the feasibility study and not an absolute, DEP has
allowed access through a zone 1 with approval, they are not mutually exclusive.
Mr. Lombardi commented that his recollection on an earlier plan that had a set aside potentially for a future
municipal well site, was significantly to the southwest of where the future municipal zone is now. Believes it
is entirely within the area that is currently identified for conservation and education and doesn't believe
that there is practically any way to shift the zone further to 137 nor would we want a well directly adjacent
to 137. Adding that this may be something that the Select Board can take up in negotiating the terms of the
Conservation Restriction with Brewster Conservation Trust and/or Mass Audubon for the remaining 56
acres. Mr. Lombardi stated that the Town already has five permitted well sites, with a six site in the
Punkhorns that is already permitted and is available. We aren't currently expecting needing to have any
more needs beyond those that are already available.
Chair Wilcock suggested having the handicap drop off and parking clearer in the presentation. He
noticed that housing in phase 3 includes wastewater treatment construction but not into phase 4 for
wastewater treatment connection to surrounding residences, asking if this is because of the timing
of the Herring River Watershed permit and if it is, it should be made explicit.This is a key point if
housing will be near 137 and how it will tie in with a watershed permit and the implications for zone
2. Chair Wilcock stated in regard to the wells, in speaking with the Water Superintendent,the
current five wells can pump about 6.27M gallons per day, a peak usage in the summer is about 3.5M
to 4M gallons a day. If well five came online, his expectation is that it would be comparable to well
six and would produce another 1M+gallons a day. This would give the Town 7.5M to 8M gallon
pumping capacity. The issue is not how much water you can pump, but how much water is in the
Joint Meeting 1.23.2024 www.brewster-ma.gov Page 5 of 12
\\\\.��\o��a°Euwlsr ��.,/ Office of:
Town of Brewster
eq,9 2198 Main Street Select Board
z s,, Town Manager
3 � ar a= Brewster, MA 02631-1898
o e rn Phone: (508) 896-3701
-'" www.brewster-ma.gov
ground, a serious issue, but has nothing what we are doing today. Water conservation is where we
should be looking.
o Member Baran responded that wells fail and have a maximum life expectancy and will need
to be replaced. Adding that well 6, potential well 5, is very close to well 6, if there is a
contamination issue, all the wells will be impacted. This is why she is suggesting keeping the
option open to at least do the feasibility study to have the information.
_Discuss and Vote on Inclusion of Community Center in Recommended Bayo
Nr for Final
Community Forum
Ms.Aronson recapped the feedback from forum 3 and the written public comment, sharing there were
mixed feelings about a community center. Some expressed full support and excitement while others were
unsure due to the high costs, There was concern of the perceived impact of a large new community center
on the character of the property and the uncertainty whether this is really needed in the community. There
was also interest in how a community campus and community center might be phased and continued
questions about if the Eddy School may become available and if it may be a better option.
Ms. Aronson reviewed a community center in Town context:
• Town warrant article to purchase the properties included a Community Center as potential use.
• The 2018 Vision Plan sets a goal of providing a community center for all ages for social and
recreational activities and includes meeting rooms.
• The Council on Aging (COA) facility is lacking adequate space for its programming needs and the
condition of the existing historic building creates ADA and maintenance challenges.
• The Recreation Department also does not have a facility of its own and uses limited office and
meeting space in the Eddy School.
• Currently there a no plans to reuse the Eddy School as a community center.
Ms. Aronson noted that we know that between the COA and Recreation Department there are a handful of
desired facilities, which could benefit from being in the same location or building. In the recent COA survey,
there were two questions related to a community center and across all age brackets the majority of
respondents said they would be very likely or somewhat likely to use a community center. Additionally in
the 50-79 age brackets, the majority of respondents wanted a community center located in one building
versus located in a different building on one site. At earlier forums feedback showed that in general the
community is more interested in reusing the existing buildings on the Bay Property for a community campus
rather than building a new community center. However, some of the most popular program interests
cannot be accommodated within the existing building footprints and would require extensive and costly
building renovations. A community center would have the potential to accommodate the facilities the
community is interested in, in one building.
There was a review of the Community Campus option,which would keep the dining hall, with no new build
of a community center. Ms. Aronson pointed out the facilities that would be unlikely to be accommodated
(fitness center, walking track, indoor pool, gymnasium and sports courts), potentially to be accommodated
(library/reading room, medical exam/treatment rooms, large multi-purpose room, conference/meeting
Joint Meeting 1,23.2024 www.brewster-ma.gov Page 6 of 12
IEIIwl1Spl if/ Office of:
Town of Brewster Select Board
2198 Main Street Town Manager
Brewster, MA 02631-1898
Phone; (508) 896-3701
www.brewster-ma.gov
is 11
room, workspaces and fitness classrooms) and those that could be accommodated (game rooms, storage
areas, office and a kitchen/cafeteria). The approximate cost to renovate the dining hall, including soft costs
and related design studies is $9.56M,this would require that additional land be acquired for a new COA
facility to be built elsewhere in town at a comparable additional cost.
In the Community Center option where the dining hall is demolished, all facilities would be accommodated
and the approximate costs for the community center including soft costs, an associated parking area, and
related designs studies is$32.96M.
The key question was presented:Should the Bay plan include an area designated for a future community
center, or should the final plan include a community campus without an area designated for a future
community center? If the final framework plan includes a future community center,this means the dining
hall will be represented as demolished.The dining hall may remain for a period of time and have limited
interim uses prior to construction of the new community center, as outlined in draft phasing diagrams to be
shared with the community.
Select Board member Bingham stated that she believes there are a lot of people who believe there are
buildings around Town not being used that could be used for a community center. She also believes there
are people who believe that the Eddy School is available to be used as a community center, we need to
dispel these thoughts if we want to have valuable discussion in regard to a community center.
Members of the Bay Property Planning Committee had the opportunity to comment and ask questions and
Chair Bebrin advised that member Karl Fryzel joined the meeting via zoom:
• Member Miller-Jacobus inquired about an 8-lane swimming pool and if it would be included with a
new community center. She also stated it is helpful to see the pricing as she understands why people
would think a community campus is a good idea.Though it would be so short sighted because it
doesn't come close to serving the identified community needs let alone future needs. She is in
support of the community center as she knows the Eddy School is not available.
o Ms. Randall responded that the 8-lane swimming pool would fit in the building, however it
was not included in the pricing. Ms. Randall confirmed that this should not be presented if it
is not included in the cost.
• Member O'Connor-Rice stated that when looking at the timing,why aren't we looking at the Eddy
School if we aren't going to start construction for 5-7years? She also noted that the tax implications
on the$32M need to be addressed, it will be another question asked at Town Meeting. Ms.
O'Connor-Rice noticed in the COA survey that the respondents were all 50+, we need to consider
the families that we hope settle here and can afford attainable housing. She believes there needs to
be a better balance of the older population with the needs of families.
o Chair Bebrin clarified that in all discussion about the community center with the COA, it has
also been in terms of a multigeneration center.
• Member Chaffee commented we heard from the COA survey that the campus approach would fail to
achieve what they most need, a safe, sufficient, and new multigenerational COA. One of a number of
benefits to proceeding with a feasibility study to explore a community center.
Joint Meeting 1.23.2024 www.brewster-ma.gov Page 7 of 12
`\,\opo\\\\ I °Wus/j/'"/°j� Office of:
�• Q �'¢LVEq .,�F -, flown of Brewster
°..,.oa oq 9 0; Select Board
z
°= �= 2198 Main Street Town Manager
Brewster, MA 02631-1898
° _ v Phone: (508) 896-3701
www.brewster-ma.gov
//''// .cI!
• Member Phillips noted that$9M is shown for a campus and shows that a new COA would be
another$9M, shouldn't we be comparing$18M to the$32M? He believes that a community center
will pay for itself and can't comprehend not having a community center in one building.
o Ms. Randall didn't want to get into assumptions about where or how much it would cost to
build a COA facility, so left that number off, but takes his point.
• Member McCarley agreed with earlier statements that the COA has always stressed a
multigenerational facility and that in the COA survey the under 50 years of age wasn't reflected. She
stated she has learned a lot on the committee and thinks that a lot needs to be shared with the
community members.
• Member Whitney noted on the cost comparisons, the $9.5M for a renovated dining hall does not get
you a community campus, only one building, several other buildings would need to be renovated as
well in order to get to the full community campus, likely including the administration building,
perhaps the art center and the infirmary. The one building is limited on what it can provide.
o Ms. Randall shared that the cost of renovating the other buildings is included if you build the
community center,which is why they pulled it out, it is not an additional costs for the campus
version.
Member Johnson motioned to include an area designated for a future community center on the Bay Plan.
Member Fryzel seconded the motion. A roll call vote was taken. Member Jacobus-Miller-yes, Member
Chaffee-yes, Member Fryzel-yes, Member Whitney-yes, Member Johnson-yes, Member McCarley-yes,
Member O'Connor Rice-yes, Member Phillips-yes, Member Wingard-yes, Chair Bebrin-yes. The vote was 10-
Yes, 0-No.
Member Whitney motioned to endorse the recommendation made by the Bay Property Planning
Committee. Member Bingham seconded the motion.A roll call vote was taken. Member Hoffmann-yes,
Member Chaffee-yes, Member Bingham-yes, Member Whitney-yes, Chair Chatelain-yes. The vote was 5-
Yes,0-No.
Discuss and Vote on Inclusion of Community Housing_I Future Municipal Uses in Recommended Plan for
Pond andlor Bay Properties for Final_Community Forum
Ms. Randall noted that the Housing Production Plan sets forth a certain number of goals that are around
increasing and adding to housing options and what is being proposed is an effort to align with these goals.
The feedback from the last forum showed that a majority of residents supported housing on at least one of
the properties, with mixed feedback on which property. In general,there was support for both the year-
round affordable housing and an option combined with seasonal workforce.Those who support housing on
the pond property preferred the denser options,with questions about wastewater and water quality. Ms.
Randall noted that should this be the decision it will be addressed at the forum in more detail.
Ms. Randall reviewed the slides from the last presentation, for the Bay property with a total of 55 acres and
the secluded zone is approximately 10 acres. The area within that is designated for housing is 7.5 acres.The
slides are illustrative to have an understanding of what is possible, but they are not the design. The plan
that was desired most by the community was to maintain buffer zone at the north part of the secluded area
Joint Meeting 1.23.2024 www.brewster-ma.gov I Page 8 of 12
O R F-IWs//��yi// Office of:
Town of Brewster
Off( l--7, % Select Board
= ;
�= 2198 Main Street
Z Town Manager
Brewster, MA 02631-1898
Phone: (508) 896-3701
www.brewster-ma.gov
NNS
to include a maintenance area for the property, potential wastewater treatment and a 76-bed model design
with slightly denser townhouse typology. There would be a separate entrance off Route 6A.
On the Pond property there is residential communities on both sides of the particular piece of the property
and abuts Long Pond woodlands and is within the Zone II. There has been a great deal of consideration and
talk about water quality. The property is 66 acres overall and 10 acres have been designated for housing,
which is about 15%of the total property. The area designated for housing is designed with buffers on all
sides, and two areas have been preliminary identified as possible areas for wastewater treatment. The
illustrative plan is townhome typology housing which is set off from Rt 137 and has room for its own
entrance to be separated from the road that goes to the beach. All of this is to be tested and designed by
appropriate consultants.
Ms. Randall reviewed the key considerations comparing some of the main issues that we know are
important on either property:
• On the pond wastewater treatment is needed in this area and any such systems could be relatively
easily integrated into adjacent neighborhoods in the Herring River and/or Pleasant Bay watersheds
to help meet the Town's nitrogen mitigation requirements. These are not all true on the Bay but
would be needed to have for housing. Less of a need for neighbor access and not the same
watershed requirements.
• The Bay has a much longer housing feasibility study and construction timeline.
• Housing would not be in a Zone II area on the Bay property.
• The Bay property has better walkability and relatively better access to bus routes. The Pond has a
good location relative to bus routes.
• Real Estate is at a premium north of 6A and integrating housing in close proximity to the high use
community activities proposed for the Bay Property may present practical complications. On the
Pond property the location is adjacent to existing residential areas.
• The proposed housing area on the Bay property was previously used for maintenance so it has
already been disturbed. The proposed housing area on the Pond property is on undisturbed land.
• Housing on the Bay property would contribute to more complicated traffic along Millstone Road
intersection. Ms. Randall confirmed that they did have their traffic engineer test and review the
options. Housing at the Pond property would not present traffic complications.
Ms. Randall stated that if housing is not selected, the area would be reserved for future municipal uses,that
can be anything included in the warrant article used to purchase the properties. This includes habitat
protection,watershed protection, open space, conservation, passive recreation, active recreation,
community housing, and general municipal uses. There would be a separate community process to
determine what the future municipal uses might be, in the phasing plan this would happen in phase 3,
which is not determined for at least 5-10 years. This is explicitly for the 10-acre zone along Rt 137.
The key question is: Following the Town's decision in October that at least one property plan should include
housing, the Design Team prepared and presented illustrative housing options for both properties to the
community. Based on community feedback, we request that the committees recommend whether the final
Joint Meeting 1.23.2024 www.brewster-ma.gov Page 9 of 12
4"ooa�l�ue ws X///"
Office of:
'T'own of Brewster Select Board
2198 Main Street Town manager
n= Brewster, MA 02631-1898
Phone: (508) 896-3701
www.brewster-ma.gov
comprehensive plans should include housing and wastewater treatment on the Pond Property,the Bay
Property, or both.
If there is no designated housing on the Pond Property plan,the 10-acre zone by Route 137 will be shown as
reserved for future municipal uses as previously stated, including all the various items in the Town Warrant
article. Similarly, if there is no designated housing on the Bay Property in the secluded zone, that will be
shown as reserved for future municipal uses as described in the Town Warrant article.
If either property designates an area for future municipal uses, a separate community process will take
place to determine the future uses and once finalized,that plan will be brought to Town Meeting for
approval. Future uses, if any, are not anticipated to be determined for at least 5-10 years.
Selectperson Chaffee commented that if the final decision is to do housing on the Pond Property, the title
on the map should always be specified as Housing and Wastewater Treatment so the message is consistent.
Chair Chatelain added that the wastewater treatment would not be just for the new development but
would collect effluent from the adjacent neighborhoods with the goal being to get to a net improvement of
water quality in Long Pond and ground water quality from where we are today. Selectperson Bingham
expressed caution because the neighbors would have to choose to hook up into the system, and we can't
assume that they will, at this point we should let it be known it is for the affordable housing units.
Mr. Lombardi noted that we are very early on with the new DEP regulations, the Town just submitted a
Notice of Intent for our Herring River Watershed permit. We have up to 7 years to develop the permit and
up to 20 years to implement it. Based on our understanding of the data of existing conditions of the Herring
River Watershed, which the Pond property is entirely within,we would have broadly across our portion of
the watershed, an obligation to offset any new development, including new housing units,with 100%
nitrogen offset. The details will need to be worked out, if the plan for the Pond property is to include
housing on the 10 acres, any wastewater system would be treating housing in the neighborhood. Exactly
what houses and whether they are in the Pleasant Bay Watershed or the Herring River Watershed or both,
we don't yet know, that is what the feasibility study is for. Mr. Lombardi stated that it is accurate to
represent that it would not be just for any new housing it would also be to bring other residential properties
online and take them off Title 5 systems and bring them into a package sewer plant.
PPPC Member Bingham moved that we have housing with wastewater treatment on Route 137,the Pond
parcel, in the top 10 acres. Member Ferris seconded the motion. A roll call vote was taken. Member
Bingham-yes, Member Hoffmann-yes, Member Taylor-no, Member Baran-no, Member Williams-no,
Member Crocker-yes, Member Ferris-yes, Member Gregoire-yes, Member Ellis-yes, Chair Wilcock-yes. The
vote was 7-Yes, 3-No.
BPPC Member Chaffee commented that the input received through the public engagement activities leaned
toward a preference for housing on only one parcel and we have just seen a recommendation for housing
on the Pond parcel. We have also been reminded that the Bay property is going to be a much busier
Joint Meeting 1.23.2024 www.brewster-ma.gov Page 10 of 12
\\\\\@O��y41E 11175 /��iii�� Off I ce of
F.£�oER B,_F9,,, Town of Brewster
Select Board
2 2198 Main Street Town Manager
Brewster, MA 02631-1898
o _ y Phone: (508) 896-3701
www.brewster-ma.gov
/��iJJi!!/lilllllll{t1111t11���1`\\\`\`
community and recreation complex, so she thinks the Pond parcel is preferred as a site and should be the
only site.
BPPC Member Miller-Jacobus motioned to support the inclusion of future municipal uses on the Bay
property site. Member Whitney seconded the motion.-A roll call vote was taken. Member Jacobus-Oillgr-
yes, Member Fryzel-yes, Member Chaffee-yes, Member Whitney-yes, Member Johnson-yes, Member
McCarley-yes, Member O'Connor Rice-yes, Member Phillips-yes, Member Wingard-yes, Chair Bebrin-yes.
The vote was 10-Yes, 0-No.
Selectperson Bingham moved to vote to approve housing on the Pond parcel property,the 10-acres near
Route 137 with housing and wastewater treatment and on the Bay property the amount of acreage near
the day camp and maintenance property for municipal use. Selectperson Whitney seconded the motion.
Chair Chatelain commented that he is supportive entirely of the use of housing on the Pond parcel,
would've liked to have seen an endorsement of housing as a use on the Bay parcel, acknowledging that is
one of the many municipal uses that may be approved down the road. He hopes the community keeps this
as one of the likely outcomes of the parcel moving forward. Selectperson Hoffmann shared that she is
incredibly sensitive to conservation and glad we got to the point of being able to conserve 85% of the
parcel, if this passes at Town Meeting, for conservation purpose. She added that she likes Mr. Lombardi's
idea of looking at the Conservation Restriction if we have information from the water study to consider if
we can have a well on the property as part of the feasibility or part of the Conservation Restriction. With the
conditions of the wastewater treatment on the pond property along with housing, Ms. Hoffmann would
support the vote. A roll call vote was taken. Selectperson Chaffee-yes, Selectperson Hoffmann-yes,
Selectperson Bingham-yes, Selectperson Whitney-yes, Chair Chatelain-yes. The Board vote was 5-Yes, 0-No.
Adjournment
BPPC Member Miller-Jacobus motioned to adjourn at 5:45pm. Member McCarley seconded the motion.A
roll call vote was taken. Member Jacobus-Miller-yes, Member Fryzel-yes, Member Chaffee-yes, Member
Whitney-yes, Member Johnson-yes, Member McCarley-yes, Member O'Connor Rice-yes, Member Phillips-
yes, Member Wingard-yes, Chair Bebrin-yes. The vote was 10-Yes, 0-No.
PPPC Member Bingham moved to adjourn at 5:45pm. Member Gregoire seconded the motion. A roll call
vote was taken. Member Bingham-yes, Member Hoffmann-yes, Member Taylor-yes, Member Baran-yes,
Member Williams-yes, Member Crocker-yes, Member Ferris-yes, Member Gregoire-yes, Chair Wilcock-yes.
The vote was 9-Yes, 0-No.
Selectperson Bingham moved to adjourn at 5:46pm. Selectperson Whitney seconded the motion. A roll call
vote was taken. Selectperson Bingham-yes, Selectperson Hoffmann-yes, Selectperson Chaffee-yes,
Selectperson Whitney-yes, Chair Chatelain-yes. The Board vote was 5-Yes, 0-No.
Respectfully submitted by Erika Mawn,
Executive Assistant
Joint Meeting 1.23.2024 www.brewster-ma.gov Page 11 of 12
`\\\\\\\\\��@1i1�U111illllllplSp��////,i
F-W Town of Brewster Office of:
Select Board
za 3 2198 Main Street Town Manager
3"I U a r= Brewster, MA 02631-1898
_° A= _ c; Phone: (508) 896-3701
www.brewster-ma.gov
Select Board Approval:
ate Kari Hoff .nn, Select Board Clerk
-If
Pond Property Planning Committee Approval:
of �' 17 110A y �j�`P,
Date Stephen Ferris, PPPC Clerk
Bay Property Planning Committee Approval:
� � I
Date Karl Fryiei, BPPC Clerk
Accompanying Documents in Packet:Agenda,Reed Hilderbrand report to committees regarding Final Plan decisions,Aging in Brewster:
A Community Needs Assessment Key findings and recommendations,Fourth Community Forum flyer,PPPC Member Hackert's email.
Joint Meeting 1.23.2024 www.brewster-ma.gov Page 12 of 12