‘An Issue Of Trust’; Sea Camps Housing Vote Stirs Debate

BREWSTER – The vote for an affordable housing feasibility study on the Sea Camps pond property tested the waters for a historically unified select board, with four members in favor and one passionately opposed.

At the select board meeting on Jan. 5, Amanda Bebrin, Caroline McCarley, Mary Chaffee and Ned Chatelain cast their votes in favor of moving forward with an affordable housing feasibility study by the affordable housing trust. Pete Dahl fervently opposed the move and attempted multiple times to postpone it. 

Dahl’s position relied heavily on two factors: a trustworthy relationship with Brewster residents and the environmental risks of housing and wastewater in an area close to drinking water wells and Long Pond. 

He first acknowledged the town’s messaging when presenting the Sea Camps comprehensive plans at town meeting in May 2024. In presenting the article, Chatelain said that the comprehensive plan was a framework and not to be acted upon until funding requests went before voters.

 “Before implementation of the plans can start, funding requests would be brought back to voters for your consideration at town meeting and at the ballot,” he said.

 A revised phasing proposal with funding requests was approved in November, but did not include any funding regarding affordable housing or wastewater treatment on the pond property. This part of the project was also not included in the revised phasing and financing plan. 

 Dahl argued that in not following through with bringing a housing and wastewater article back to voters, the town was losing a sense of trust with residents. 

In an official response to the vote, he said, “I still think this comes down to an issue of trust. The select board clearly committed to bring this back to town meeting. Regardless of your position on the issue, this needs to be settled by town meeting. I expect there will be a citizen’s petition that will bring it to town meeting in May or to request a special town meeting.”

In discussions before the select board voted on the feasibility study, Dahl made a motion to defer the vote. He requested that the issue be brought to town meeting in May. He also proposed waiting for the updated integrated water resource management plan, which will be released within the next few months, and waiting for the land evaluation committee to begin its audit of town-owned parcels. 

Affordable housing projects have historically taken years to come to fruition. Many speakers at the recent select board meeting referred to Spring Rock Village, the affordable housing project off Millstone Road, which has been in the planning stages for about seven years without a shovel in the ground. Dahl said taking a few more months to gain more information is a relatively small amount of time given the 10 to 12 years it could possibly take for the project to become a reality.

The other four members vetoed the motion. 

Dahl also argued that once the water supply is contaminated, there is no going back. 

“The Sea Camps pond site is too sensitive to risk,” he said. “Our single source aquifer is not something we should put at risk. We have spent considerable resources acquiring open space to protect our water supply. It makes no sense to move in the opposite direction.” 

In final thoughts after the vote, Dahl acknowledged the divisiveness of the issue. “The divisiveness is not about the need for affordable housing, it is about where to put it and in what form,” he said.

Bebrin, McCarley, Chaffee and Chatelain all supported moving forward with the affordable housing trust feasibility study under the conditions that they would provide quarterly updates and engage public feedback. 

The feasibility study is likely to take a year, and will provide more information on what can actually be done on the property.

“Over the next year, we’ll have the opportunity to learn more about the site and hear feedback from many residents as we explore the opportunities and challenges of potential housing at the pond parcel. I look forward to having the information that we need and continuing to hear from Brewster residents as we work through the process,” said Bebrin. 

She argued that the feasibility study is the clear next step in the process, and said there will not be any design or construction until that is completed.

In a response to the vote, she praised the town for the work that has already been done regarding the Sea Camps properties. 

“For five years, the town has navigated the acquisition of the former Cape Cod Sea Camps and envisioned its future with a thoughtful, deliberative approach,” she said. “At each step, we have provided residents with ample data to inform their decisions alongside many opportunities to give input. The select board’s vote on Jan. 5 to proceed with a feasibility study of the 10 acres on the pond property, along with opportunities for the public to engage with the Brewster Affordable Housing Trust, is a continuation of this approach.”

McCarley said the logical next step is to move forward with the feasibility study. “To figure out what we want to build, how much we want to build, and if we can build on that property, we must do a feasibility study that will answer those questions through a civic engagement process and further research with the committees and experts that can help answer those questions,” she said.

In her response to the meeting, she thanked residents for sharing their opinions and providing “engaging, productive and interesting” conversations. Although many residents at the meeting were in opposition of the vote, McCarley said this is how the process works. 

“I think the meeting reached the correct outcome for the community,” she said. 

Chatelain said the feasibility study is needed to answer many of the questions that were brought up in discussions before the vote on Jan. 5. He argued that the community will have numerous occasions to provide input and share feedback throughout the year-long feasibility study. But at the end of the day, Chatelain called the project a “win-win.” 

“This is an exciting project because it will use a town-sponsored affordable housing initiative to anchor a wastewater project that will help clean up our drinking water, pond water, and Herring River/Pleasant Bay,” he said. “It is a win-win.” 

Chatelain also said the study is “an important step in implementing the Sea Camps plans approved at town meeting.” Like the majority of his colleagues, his view is that voters did approve the plans that included a potential affordable housing project on the pond property. While that doesn’t mean that will happen, he argues that they need to conduct the feasibility study to fully know the ins and outs of placing community housing and a potential wastewater system on those 10 acres. 

At many points during the Jan. 5 meeting, Chaffee sympathized with Dahl’s point of view. In the end, she said she believed moving forward with a narrow feasibility study would help determine the next steps. 

“The outcome, a vote to direct the Brewster Affordable Housing Trust to carry out a study and make a recommendation to the select board, was a prudent, limited action,” she said.

Like her colleagues, Chaffee argued that the vote didn’t create housing on the property. She said it would provide invaluable information that is needed to make those decisions moving forward. 

In her closing comments, she said, “I appreciated hearing from Brewster residents in emails and at the Jan. 5 meeting and hope many residents will take part in the feasibility study process.”

Many of the residents who spoke before the select board on Jan. 5 believed moving forward with the feasibility study was a step too far. They requested bringing the idea of housing back to town meeting, arguing that it was lumped into the comprehensive plan. 

According to Dahl, of the 95 letters the select board received before the vote, about 88 percent of them opposed the feasibility study. 

The Brewster Conservation Trust (BCT) and the Brewster Ponds Coalition (BPC) were two major organizations within the town that vehemently opposed the action, and were not shy about voicing their concerns. After sending letters to the board detailing their reasoning in opposing the vote, many members attended the Jan. 5 meeting. 

 At the time of The Chronicle’s deadline on Tuesday, the BCT and the BPC had not released official statements in response to the vote.