HomeMy Public PortalAboutMeeting_4_BCAG_SummaryMay 18, 2016 – Meeting Summary – Brewster Coastal Advisory Group 1
Brewster Coastal Advisory Group: Developing a Coastal Adaptation Strategy For
Brewster
Meeting Four Summary
May 18, 2016 | 5:30 – 8:30 PM
Brewster Town Hall Rooms A&B | Brewster, MA
Overview
As it prepares for future coastal change, sea level rise, and shoreline erosion, and seeks
to meet coastal access needs of the community, the Town of Brewster is supporting a
public engagement process to develop a coastal adaptation strategy based on sound
coastal science and public values and interests. The strategy will guide future decision-
making in Brewster’s coastal areas. The Brewster Coastal Advisory Group will review
relevant scientific data and public input to develop recommendations to include in the
coastal adaptation strategy, which the Town of Brewster and its consultants (the project
team) will draft. The project team consists of a public engagement team led by the
Consensus Building Institute and a scientific and technical team led by Horsley Witten
Group.
The objectives of the third meeting of the Brewster Coastal Advisory Group (the group)
were to:
• Review and synthesize information gathered from the visioning workshop
• Seek agreement on guiding principles and evaluation criteria
• Learn about the range of management strategies to address potential changes to
Brewster’s coastline.
Materials reviewed and discussed during the May 18 meeting included: draft meeting
summaries from the group meeting on April 6 and the public visioning workshop on
April 26, draft guiding principles, and written input from John Lamb on one of the
agenda items. A presentation titled Brewster’s Landings, Coastal Change and Adaptation
was presented. Meeting materials, presentations, and a video of the meeting are
available on the project website: www.cbuilding.org/project/brewstercoast.
Members who were present included: Abigail Archer, Ryan Burch, Matt Cannon, Ruth
Courtnell, Tom Devane, Max Dwyer, James Goodrich, Mary O’Neil, Donald Poole, Chris
Powicki, Joe Rinaldi, and Cindy Roth.
Advisory group liaisons who were present included: Pat Hughes, Chris Miller, Hal Minis,
and Elizabeth Taylor.
Decisions and Action Items
The group made the following decisions at the meeting:
May 18, 2016 – Meeting Summary – Brewster Coastal Advisory Group 2
• The group approved the April 6 and April 26 meeting and workshop summaries
with inclusion of additional revisions suggested at the meeting.
Action Items from the April 6 meeting included the following:
• Group Members
o Think about potential creative public engagement activities to launch in
July to solicit public and visitor input; come prepared to present the idea
at the June 1 meeting.
• CBI/HW/Town
o Distribute the shuttle study document to the BCAG
o Revise April 6 and April 26 meeting summaries and distribute
o Put together materials, including beach profiles, to inform the June 1
discussion
o Provide information on the bikeway plan
o Look into status of DCR/Crosby parking review project approved by Town
Meeting
o Identify new Board of Selectmen liaison
o Look into utilizing Americorp volunteers for July outreach efforts
Welcome and Opening Business:
Ms. Stacie Smith, facilitator, opened the meeting and welcomed the participants. She
reviewed the agenda and meeting guidelines.
Mr. Eric Roberts, facilitator, sought feedback on the draft summaries from the April 6
meeting and April 26 public workshop. Members suggested a spelling change to the
April 6 meeting summary and requested the addition of the map activity data to the
workshop summary. The group approved both meeting and workshop summaries with
the additional suggested revisions or additions.
BCAG Input on Approved Coastal Projects
The facilitators added the topic of BCAG input on approved coastal projects to the
agenda because several group members had contacted the facilitators to express
concern about approved town coastal projects that were now going forward. Some of
the members also inquired about the relationship between the group and other town
decisions that are already in the pipeline and moving forward. Before opening the topic
to group discussion, Ms. Smith stressed the following:
• Part of the reason Town Meeting supported this group was to change the nature
of conversations about controversial projects taking place in the town.
• To build trust and collaborate effectively and respectfully, this group needs to
talk about the topics and issues that matter to group members and the public. If
the process does not allow an opportunity to talk about those topics, even if the
topics are outside the group’s mandate, then those conversations are moved
May 18, 2016 – Meeting Summary – Brewster Coastal Advisory Group 3
outside of the group’s collaborative, safe, space and into an area where the
conversations may become negative, engender mistrust, and could be harmful
to the group’s ultimate success.
• This group should not seek to relitigate decisions about projects that were
already approved by Town Meeting. However, allowing open discussion about
those projects and people’s views on them could provide the group with useful
lessons learned.
Group members discussed the topic. A member who could not attend the meeting
submitted comments for inclusion in the discussion. Those comments are available in
Appendix A. Group members made the following comments:
• The grant that funds this project was submitted in June of 2015 at a time of
divisive debate over Breakwater landing. At that time, the town proposed
moving forward with this grant, committed to consensus building, and the Board
of Selectmen said the goal was to avoid divisiveness in the future. Afterward,
things happened with the Special Town Meeting and projects were put forward
for funding either fully developed or in the concept stage. I would argue that the
commitment to consensus building happened before those projects were
funded. And I would listen to the voices of the selectmen who were most
supportive of consensus building in the future; their recent votes on postponing
implementation of the Crosby Project suggested the town should not pursue the
project until our work is completed.
• The situation with the Crosby project raises concerns about how the decision is
implemented and if the project design makes sense given the scientific data and
public input we’ve received as part of this group. It raises the question of how
the Brewster Coastal Advisory Group is going to interact with the town and have
input to make sure projects are implemented in ways that are congruent with
the guiding principles of this group and the science we have learned. I request a
future agenda item to cover this topic and suggest town officials be included in
the discussion.
• I’m offended this topic was raised in light of the Town Meeting vote and that
someone would use this group as an excuse to not move forward with a project.
People should not be using this group to try to stop decisions of the Board of
Selectmen. The details of every project are beyond our scope and I’ll leave the
group if we go that route. Out task is strategic planning. Trying to govern
individual projects, in light of the Town Meeting vote, is out of line. The group
should not decide if a vote at Town Meeting is right or wrong.
• There is still a lot of information for us to review before making
recommendations for strategic guidance, and it doesn’t seem possible for us to
comment or make recommendations on a specific project when we still have so
much work to do.
Ms. Smith summarized the group member’s comments. She noted the different
perspectives about whether or not the group should talk about project implementation
May 18, 2016 – Meeting Summary – Brewster Coastal Advisory Group 4
and that an outstanding question of the group has been how detailed and specific the
strategy’s recommendations will be. At the next meeting, the group will begin looking at
opportunities for addressing the adaptation and access risks landing by landing, as well
as town-wide. The group will have the opportunity to evaluate alternatives and identify
the pros and cons of taking various approaches. She added that the facilitators will think
more about this topic and figure out how to bring it back to the group in a way that
respects the two perspectives we heard—that of the group’s strategic role and that of
providing guidance on implementation and setting a smooth process for communication
between this group and the town.
Several members of the public provided comments on the topic. The following is a
summary of the main ideas they shared:
• Charlie Sumner – I looked at the member comments that were handed out and
saw some problematic words that are inappropriate to use when referring to our
Board of Selectmen. The other issue is whether or not this group should be
discussing issues decided at Town Meeting. It was said that we applied for the
consensus building grant because of the citizen petition; in fact, we’d applied for
the grant well before that citizen’s petition developed. There were lots of
comments on Article 10, which included nine projects. Only one, the Crosby Lane
project, continues as topic of conversation today. If this conversation occurred
right after Town Meeting and looked at all projects in Article 10, you might say
they are concerned about a lot of broad issues. The project in question was
overwhelmingly supported by Town Meeting. The vote was clear—the voters
wanted to do this project.
• Richard Koch – I came to speak to the member who submitted comments and
remind him of the history I have with him about these issues, which is important
for the other members to understand. He has dismissed or criticized all the data
collection and efforts we’ve put into projects. It is easy to tear down but hard to
build. We’ve gone through the DCR and completed all the necessary permits.
Opponents have called all the agencies to complain about aspects of the project.
The town’s process to pursue the project at Crosby has been open and honest
and we are doing the best we can.
• Peter Johnson – Thank you all for the work you are doing. From my perspective
as a citizen, I certainly hope and expect some real value to come from this group.
I think it is worthwhile and would find it hard to imagine there won’t be good
listening and interaction with the town and its boards in terms of the
recommendations this group proposes. I think this group will be taken seriously
and look forward to your report. I agree with the point that the Town Meeting
decisions are committed and that it has been an open process. Keep doing the
work you’re doing.
Ms. Smith reminded participants and audience members of the goal to shift the way
they think and respond to each other and the assumptions they have about one
another’s motivations, since these can stand in the way of collaboration and the
May 18, 2016 – Meeting Summary – Brewster Coastal Advisory Group 5
commonalities they shared. She suggested that the group could create a framework to
guide good decisions that balances the many perspectives and concerns that people
have, and creating this framework would leave the town in a better place. Group
members made the following comments:
• A member suggested that no one person speak for or represent the group at
any meeting. Ms. Smith agreed, and added that if it isn’t in the operating
protocols already, it should be.1 Group members are allowed to speak from
their perspective but not on behalf of the group.
• A member clarified that he was not suggesting the grant for this project was
submitted in response to the citizen’s petition; the grant was submitted in June
and the petition started in July, and the Crosby project was designed around
that time.
Visioning Workshop Debrief and Guiding Principle Development
The group identified some of the insights they gleaned from the public visioning
workshop and review of the workshop meeting summary. They made the following
comments:
• It was helpful to read the well-written summary. I was glad to see the list of what
people loved included in the summary because we talked more about our
concerns than about what we loved in my group.
• Members suggested the following additional information would be helpful:
o Input from parents with kids to learn how they access the beach and
what is important to them
o Input and data from businesses and owners that rely on the beaches (e.g.
hotels, bed and breakfasts, etc.)
o A presentation from the Bikeways Committee so we know how their plan
intersects with our work
o Additional analysis of the beach access survey data
o Information from summer visitors
• I was impressed by the genuine sincerity with which the people approached the
questions.
• Workshop participants underscored the importance of the aquifer, the marshes,
and other natural resources and the whole coastal system as opposed to just the
beach.
• Participant suggested we take the time to look for innovative solutions.
• We need to start thinking about what is going on at private properties and to
look beyond our landings to make sure things that are upstream or further
inland (e.g. septic systems) don’t impact water quality. Homeowners need to
start thinking how SLR or storm surge might impact their septic systems.
• The public needs to be involved early and often in these decisions.
1 This principle is included in the group’s operating protocols.
May 18, 2016 – Meeting Summary – Brewster Coastal Advisory Group 6
Members made the following comments regarding the workshop outreach, the
agenda/structure of the workshop, and other public engagement:
• Overall, it was well done--thumbs-up. Only heard positive comments. People
were appreciative of the involvement.
• A member wished more town officials would participate in the process to
develop the Brewster Coastal Adaptation Strategy.
• A member suggested utilizing the Chamber of Commerce more and possibly
working with the Inns (e.g. provide a short survey for when guests check in) or
the department that sells beach stickers (provide information when people buy
their beach stickers).
• For July public engagement, consider setting up a booth at the Brewster
Conservation Day (July 9).
• Approach the Shellfish Department, which has a program where people must
stop and check in for compliance. They could complete a brief survey at that
time.
Group members were asked to think about how to get visitor input in July for discussion
at the next meeting on June 1.
Mr. Roberts presented the draft guiding principles for review and discussion. Group
members made the following comments:
• Everything on here is good, but add two more items: Acknowledge the economic
significance of the coastal areas, and add something about maintaining or
enhancing safety (e.g. traffic patterns, bikes, kids running around.)
• Add or revise to include access for all ages and all types of access (visual,
recreation, etc.) and in all seasons.
• The Warrant Article 9 from Town Meeting offers some guiding principles that
could be incorporated.
• The draft strawman guiding principles are important on their own or added to
this document: using best available science, building community consensus on
vulnerabilities and options for action, etc.
• Add statement on environmental and fiscal sustainability.
• Incorporate the idea of achievable and reasonable.
Overview of Impacts and Management Strategy Options
Ms. Geraldine Camilli, technical team member from Horsley Witten Group, presented
the potential impacts of sea level rise, storm surge, and shoreline change in Brewster
landing by landing, as well as adaption strategy options for consideration in the Coastal
Adaptation Strategy. Highlights from her presentation included the following. Please see
the presentation slide deck for details.
May 18, 2016 – Meeting Summary – Brewster Coastal Advisory Group 7
• We evaluated what might happen in the future at each landing and summarized
how the resource, parking, and access might be affected under different sea
level rise scenarios. At the next meeting, we’ll look at strategies to adapt to the
threats posed by SLR at each landing.
• Stretches of the Brewster shoreline eroded or accreted at different rates
between 1951 and 2009. The area with the most erosion is just east of Paine’s
Creek and Mant’s Landing. The area near Crosby tended to grow. Along many
stretches of the coast, there is a significant amount of uncertainty in the
measurements and a lot of movement is possible in these areas.
• A variety of preliminary adaptive measures could be pursued individually or as a
multi-faceted approach. Preliminary adaptive measures include:
o Do nothing
o Managed retreat
o Protect the landing using a variety of approaches including native
vegetation, beach nourishment, sand fencing, re-grading/cleaning up
after storms, fiber rolls/coir envelopes, etc. Nearly all of these
approaches require permitting; however the approaches listed to protect
landings are temporary approaches and are not considered coastal
engineering structures.
o Providing alternative access (e.g. shuttle, bike, etc.)
• New coastal engineering structures (CES) are not typically allowed due to the
Massachusetts Wetlands Protection Act, although they may be allowed in select
circumstances (e.g. a building built before 1978 is at risk). None of Brewster’s
landings or parking lots meet the requirements of the select circumstances. If
homeowners or others who own buildings built pre-1978, they may apply for
CESs, which would alter the evolution of the shoreline.
• All proposed CESs would be reviewed by the Brewster Conservation Commission
and could potentially be reviewed by the state if certain circumstances are met
or if state-owned property could be impacted. Property owners would have to
receive the proper permits before constructing the CES.
• The town has utilized some of the aforementioned adaptive measures. The town
retreated at Paine’s Creek and at Breakwater to avoid repeated storm damage.
Coastal dunes were restored to protect the parking lot at Breakwater. The town
has also implemented beach nourishment and dune plantings in locations.
• Ms. Camilli reviewed the initial assessments of each landing describing the
general condition of the landing and surrounding environment, and the water
level that would cause impacts to the resource, the access, and/or parking
facilities. Please see the slides for details of each landing’s assessment.
Group Discussion
Group members and participants made the following comments during or after the
presentation:
May 18, 2016 – Meeting Summary – Brewster Coastal Advisory Group 8
• We should consider adding mitigating risks as an adaptation option. For
example, we could change asphalt to permeable pavers and increase resiliency in
doing so. It may allow us to manage water quality concerns from storm drains or
upstream septic systems.
• Improving existing access and broadening access could also be included in the
adaptation strategies. For example, repairing the little bridge at Paine’s Creek
and erecting signage would encourage people to access a part of the beach that
is not currently frequented. Or, adding bike trails to access different public
beaches.
• The group briefly discussed interactions between town property and private
property and offered additional options to add to the list of adaptation
strategies: A participant noted that many of the town landings are down-drift
from hardened structures, which impact town landings and suggested the group
consider how the town will want to deal with those structures overtime as a
prevention method. Ms. Camilli commented that it would be difficult to propose
removing a structure from private property. Another member suggested adding
joint management or collaborative management options between private
property owners and the town as another adaptation option, and noted that this
approach might work in cases where the property owner cannot afford to install
and manage structures.
• It would be helpful to consider what access is currently like at each landing
before we consider management or adaptation options. For example, what
options are available to access the site, how much is the beach utilized, or what
types of access occurs or is available (e.g. shell fishermen use landing to get on
the water).
• We should increase our scenarios to MHW+12 feet of SLR or MHW+6 feet of SLR
and 6 feet of storm surge because the current scenarios do not capture wave
action and show where water would be lapping. The concern with the current
scenarios is that we are only seeing the inundation but we are not seeing what
will with that inundation if you have four feet of storm surge with waves. We
should also consider the prospect of a hurricane. A monster storm like Sandy is
out there, and it will have a generational impact on the coast once it strikes. Ms.
Camilli said she could add the additional MHW+12 feet SLR to the slides for the
next meeting.
The group discussed additional information that would be useful for the landing-by-
landing exercise proposed for the next meeting. The following information was
suggested:
• It would be useful to categorize areas where access is lost in scenarios and figure
out how access could be provided (e.g. Wing’s Island walking path)
• Shellfishing use areas
• Number of parking spaces
• Linear feet of beach
May 18, 2016 – Meeting Summary – Brewster Coastal Advisory Group 9
• Data about which beaches have bike access (a trail, path, or something that
enables safe bike access)
• Number of handicap parking spots at each landing, and the other handicap
facilities available at the landing
• Property values
• Levels of access or types of access
• Brewster “Beach Atlas”
• Stormwater discharge locations near beaches
• Neighborhoods that might flood and create water quality impacts
The group discussed developing beach profiles to guide their deliberation of options:
• A member commented that seeing these “beach profiles” with as much
information as possible will help members to understand the character of the
landings and which adaptation options may or may not be appropriate. She
added that the beach profile could be an updateable product that would be
useful for town staff going forward, and which could be updated over time.
• Ms. Smith said that profiles similar to those that Ms. Camilli presented would be
provided at the next meeting to help spur small group discussion about
adaptation options at each landing. In addition to the data on the maps already,
the maps and profiles will show locations marshes, wetlands, land restrictions,
town-owned lands, state-owned lands, etc. to help inform the retreat options
the group considers.
• Ms. Camilli said landings could be grouped by threat, since a discussion about no
parking or no access may lead to a very different conversation. A member
supported this idea and said that assigning threat levels would help to better
quantify which parking lots are good or bad investments under various scenarios.
The group briefly discussed wave action and the SLOSH model.
• A member suggested it may be useful for decision makers if the group were to
catalog the data that is available for review (e.g. NOAA data on a Category 4
storm in the Bay). Later in the meeting, he returned to this topic to clarify his
point, noting that an important element of a strategy is knowing what
information is available, and by looking at the available information one is able
to determine what is achievable. He added that part of the strategy should
recognize that conditions will look different in 10 years.
• Mr. Mark Borelli, technical team, commented that SLOSH models are designed
for areas of open ocean with steep slopes, which is very different than the
conditions in Brewster. He suggested the best option for the group is to look at
inundation and where water will end up.
• A member suggested the reason for requesting a higher scenario, such as
MHW+12, is to accommodate the fact that wave driven water will bring the
water further inland. Mr. Borelli gave thumbs up to this idea.
May 18, 2016 – Meeting Summary – Brewster Coastal Advisory Group 10
The group discussed different types of access. Ms. Smith commented that it seems the
group might need to think about access in a few ways. One is visual access profile from
the parking lot, and where visual access can or cannot be preserved. Another is a public
access profile to see things like the proximity of bike paths or handicap accessibility.
Chris Miller, Town liaison, commented on the idea of visual access. He noted the group
had thus far focused on sandy beach access, and suggested that if the group looks at
visual access, it could broaden the scope to include other properties in town that have
vistas. He added that future visual accessibility could also be a consideration as some
marshes might eventually flood and become sandy beaches with a view.
The group discussed stormwater discharges and flooding of private property septic
systems. A member suggested identifying stormwater discharge locations at beaches
(e.g. Considine Ditch) that pose water quality concerns, or neighborhoods at risk for
flooding and impacts to septic systems. Ms. Smith said the focus of this strategy is
primarily on landings given the scope of the project, but these types of impacts are
important to recognize. The member suggested the group could denote this as an issue
to think about going forward, and note in the beach profile that this data is absent and
will need to be collected.
A member commented on the retreat option in relation to the group conversations at
the next meeting. He suggested that when talking about retreat, the group will need
criteria for how to decide when to retreat. For example, it could be level of flooding, or
level of risk. Additionally, criteria would be needed to decide how to retreat. For
example, it could be moving back the parking space, changing the substrate of the
parking area, sacrificing parking and moving to a shuttle system, etc.
A member expressed uncertainty about how to address long term risks posed by sea
level rise, with short term needs such as access during the peak summer months, while
also being fiscally responsible. Stacie suggested this will play out when options are
evaluated and the group identifies the pros and cons or costs and benefits of various
options. She noted that the group may not be able to agree on how to prioritize since
some value access during the peak season more than others. The goal will be to
understand the tradeoffs in the big picture.
A member asked Chris Miller for an update on portion of a warrant at Town Meeting
that suggested reviewing all parking options for Crosby across the DCR property. Mr.
Miller said he was not aware of what had been done in this regard since it was being
implemented by the Board of Selectmen. The member suggested there might be a lot of
different alternative access options that could be considered. Ms. Smith suggested that
the consultant team could try to find out about the status of this effort and at what
point it might inform the work of this group.
Next Steps
May 18, 2016 – Meeting Summary – Brewster Coastal Advisory Group 11
The budget for the July and August meetings were approved at the Town Meeting. The
state is still reviewing the proposal of how the deliverables are changing.
The group will proceed according to the work plan that was previously distributed on
April 6. The next and fifth meeting will be on June 1 and the sixth meeting will be on
June 22, then public engagement will be done in July and this group will reconvene in
September to review what was learned from the public and pull together the strategy.
The June 1 and June 22 meetings will help us prepare for the July public engagement.
On June 1, group members will work in small groups to start to evaluate adaptation
options landing by landing. The June 22 meeting will advance the work started on June
1. During the meetings, it may be useful to think about strategies both landing-by-
landing and at a broader, coast-wide level too.
Mr. Hal Minus, Bikeways Committee Liaison, offered to present the bike strategy that
the Board of Selectmen adopted.
The group discussed Board of Selectmen representation at the meetings. Ms. Pat
Hughes will no longer be the liaison. Ms. Hughes noted that the Board of Selectmen will
be appointing another liaison.2 Group members thanked Ms. Hughes for her work.
The group briefly discussed a presentation about shuttle options. A member noted that
Cape Cod National Seashore completed a study on shuttle options, and it includes some
information that is very useful for the group. She noted that it appears shuttle
development is a complex endeavor. CBI will distribute the report. A member
suggested that the group consider all the possible meanings the term shuttle, and said
she thinks of a small trolley-like vehicle as opposed to a bus of some kind.
The facilitators asked the group to think about potential creative public engagement
activities to launch in July to solicit public and visitor input and come prepared to
present the idea at the June 1 meeting. Activities could possibly include drop by
workshops, a website tool, open house, beach walks, etc. Consider what days of the
week, and times of day might be best too.
Public Comment
The following public comment was made:
• Judy Scherzo – Maybe we could survey people on the beaches and talk to folks
one-on-one to gather their input?
2 It was clarified during the June 1 meeting that a new liaison would be appointed on June 6.
May 18, 2016 – Meeting Summary – Brewster Coastal Advisory Group 12
Members noted one-on-one beach outreach was how the Special Town Meeting was
convened. Another member suggested that if the group explores this option, it might be
possible to utilize Americorps Volunteers before the end of July.
May 18, 2016 – Meeting Summary – Brewster Coastal Advisory Group 13
Appendix A:
Submitted Comments on the agenda item, BCAG Input on Approved Coastal Projects
Hi everyone! I'm very sorry I can't be here. I remain with you in spirit! I had a long-
standing commitment, indicated in all “doodle” polls. Please consider my thoughts on
this topic … I'll be back!
I'm quite concerned. A majority of our select-board decided to snub the consensus
process last month in a critical beach access decision. It voted to create a new car park
with a wide new double entrance opposite a private driveway on Crosby Lane, in a box
turtle/otter habitat coastal transition area. This isn't in DCR's 10-year Nickerson action
plan, completed after a consensus process last year, and it is the kind of radical action
that could be better addressed by our initiative.
Our consensus-building was created to bridge the chasm after the disconnect over the
beach access initiatives that triggered a 500+ citizens' petition. 87% of Town Meeting
last September supported it – 633-98 of citizens – including the Selectmen. The Crosby
project then was vague – not surveyed and the full cost was not shared. It is based on a
very specific adaptation strategy that may not be our consensus. And it has changed
substantially since.
The new parking is on broken hardtop and trees - former courts being reclaimed by
nature for over 30 years. More than half the broken hardtop the cars would use is
within the 100 ft of coastal wetlands. It is all within 200 ft of a perennial brook. It slopes
towards the wetlands and the brook. A Conservation Commission review is being
avoided by saying cars will only use the remaining hardtop areas ... but if it rains, their
run-off will track down the slopes, and they will not be ticketed for straying closer to the
wetlands! Also two short sloping connecting roads have to be cut through woodland.
Three selectmen selected a voice/show of hands vote, close to 50-50, taken with many
fewer peo ple at the end of Town Meeting, as their justification for this, rather than the
87% petition vote of many more people, which included our consensus process. They
ignored the adjacent parking alternative, on existing clear area, agreed in a consensus
process with Ben deRuyter, DPW, and residents last May.
These Selectmen authorized the new parking against the recommendation of our Board
liaison Pat Hughes, and in opposition to the chair, Ben De Ruyter. This should worry us,
as Selectmen usually follow the lead of their appointed liaison. After yesterday's
election, neither Pat nor Ben remain on the Board. The Selectmen who disregarded the
opportunity this process presents were not interviewed by CBI as we started – they were
represented in the interviews by Pat and Ben.
We also heard from Chris Miller that the Town's expectation for this process is that more
people build a better understanding of what is happening and needs to be done, not
that the Town wants to hear the people and adjust to reach a true consensus.
I don't want to pre-judge any specific decision we may make, but I don't believe three
May 18, 2016 – Meeting Summary – Brewster Coastal Advisory Group 14
selectmen should either. They supposedly committed to this consensus process last
September with the rest of us. I see no point in continuing if the three selectmen who
control all decisions aren't engaged effectively. We are all investing a lot of our time. I
wonder, should we ask for clarification, or should we respectfully suggest that they
suspend the Crosby decision for a few months to show good faith, as Pat Hughes
recommended?