Sea Camps Affordable Housing Feasibility Study Moves Forward In Wake Of Public Dissent And Opposing Select Board Opinions

BREWSTER – Four select board members voted Monday to move ahead with a feasibility study of the Sea Camps pond property, marking the first step in developing affordable housing on the land. For the majority of residents at the meeting, that first step was a step too far.

 The select board was asked to vote on a measure that would authorize the affordable housing trust to conduct a feasibility study of the pond property as part of a proposed affordable housing project on 10 acres of the parcel. Ned Chatelain, Amanda Bebrin and Caroline McCarley were strong proponents of the action, while Pete Dahl staunchly opposed it. Chair Mary Chaffee remained impartial throughout the night before voting to approve the action. The vote was preceded by a lengthy discussion including public comment, much of it negative. 

 Before discussions began, Mark Nelson of the Horsley Witten Group presented draft findings on the water table, groundwater divide lines, Zone II recharge area and direction of flow surrounding the pond property. The research was part of the integrated water resource management plan update focused on water supply analysis and well mapping. 

 Susan Bridges, former president of the Brewster Ponds Coalition, questioned the move as the information was not yet evaluated and approved by the water resources task force. 

 “I am amazed that there was a presentation by Mark [Nelson] about the new public drinking water supply analysis and mapping tonight, which is a draft section of the updated integrated water resource management plan,” she said. Bridges questioned why it had been put on the agenda, “and it hasn’t yet been submitted to the water resource task force or the natural resources advisory commission for peer review. Isn’t that the order that these things happen?”

 Bridges said that the presentation was attempting to argue that under standard conditions, the property was not in a Zone II recharge area. The research concluded that water from the property does not flow directly into the well area that recharges the town’s drinking supply. Many residents in the room questioned how the findings are related, arguing that the information cannot unequivocally determine what will happen in the future given uncertain climate conditions. 

 Bridges said legally, the land is within the Zone II, since the designation is set up for “worst case scenarios” including drought conditions. The Zone II area helps to determine the vulnerable areas surrounding the drinking water recharge area.

 Moving forward with a feasibility study when so many residents oppose housing on the property altogether is a waste of time, money and effort, she said. 

 Bebrin, Chatelain and McCarley all argued that the feasibility study was necessary to answer the questions presented by the public. Dahl had an entirely different feeling on the matter. 

 In his opening remarks, he referenced the 95 residents who submitted letters to the select board before the vote. Eighty-eight percent opposed the project. 

 “It is clear from this large sample that moving forward with housing on this property is unpopular, divisive and environmentally risky,” he said. “As is clearly indicated from the many emails and letters, this is the wrong project, at the wrong place, at the wrong time.”

 McCarley said there is an unsubstantiated notion that the land evaluation committee will find another piece of property that would work better for the project. 

 “I think we will continue to look, but this is a piece of property that was presented four years ago and got 1,485 people supporting it with housing mentioned,” she said. 

 Many of the residents at the meeting said the housing project was lumped into the Sea Camps comprehensive plan, so they felt as though they weren’t able to express their opposition at the time the plan was presented for a public vote at town meeting. Some went as far as saying they were “railroaded” into approving the project. 

 Dahl supported bringing a vote to town meeting strictly on the affordable housing project issue so residents can speak directly to the proposal.

 A handful of residents on Monday proposed different locations for the project, including untouched land behind the Brewster police station, the plot in front of town hall (with an emphasis on moving the current baseball field to the bay property) and repurposing structures that were no longer used, like the old natural resources office. 

 They said finding different locations, with smaller numbers of units, may even help the projects move along more quickly. 

 Chatelain, who is the chair of the affordable housing trust, referenced Spring Rock Village, the affordable housing project off Millstone Road. He mentioned that the project is now on its 10th year without a shovel in the ground. No building or work will be started without research, fact-finding and designs, he said. Some residents argued that the long timeline for the project to become a reality won’t help the housing crisis. 

 A Harwich homeowner was not allowed to speak at the meeting, but made her stance known. She opposed the project, claiming that “overbuilding” within the Herring River Watershed had dried up her well. 

 At the end of public comment, Dahl put forth a new motion to defer any action regarding housing on the Sea Camps property until presented with the new IWRMP, a report of significant progress from the land evaluation committee and a vote at town meeting to approve funding for the feasibility study. 

 The feasibility study will not be conducted with town funding but with state grants. Assistant Town Manager Donna Kalinick said the relevant program has been updated in recent years (since it was last used for Spring Rock Village) and now requires payback for the study if the project has not moved forward within five years of obtaining the funding. Chatelain said such a study is usually no more than $35,000. 

 The remaining four select board members vetoed Dahl’s motion. 

 “We have no answers to provide anybody at town meeting at this time,” said Chatelain. “Folks have asked a ton of excellent questions tonight and I have the same questions myself. I think postponing [the study], we would have to bring the Sea Camps plans back to town meeting again, and have exactly the same conversation we had last time with nothing new to add if we don’t have some work done between now and then.” 

The vote to move forward with the feasibility study included a requirement for quarterly updates to the select board and the community. The study will take about a year to complete. 

The vote does not give jurisdiction over the parcel to the affordable housing trust; that will remain with the select board.