Housing Trust Talks Process For Pond Parcel Feasibility Study

BREWSTER – The affordable housing trust met Jan. 15 to discuss the logistics of the Sea Camps pond parcel feasibility study, which was approved by a select board vote of 4-1. 

 Ned Chatelain, chair of the affordable housing trust (AHT) and select board liaison, shared the parameters of the motion approved on Jan. 5: to conduct a feasibility study with public input and quarterly reports. 

 Following the town meeting vote in May 2024 approving the Sea Camps comprehensive plans, the town has not made any further decisions or directives regarding housing and wastewater on the pond property. Chatelain provided background context and said that the feasibility study would be the next action taken on the property.

 He also shared characteristics of the property that he believes sets it up well for housing and wastewater. 

“The very exciting thing about this parcel is that it is ideally situated for wastewater treatment because it’s at the top of the groundwater lens,” he said. “So water from that area of town goes both east into Pleasant Bay and south and west to Herring River. And it’s in our Zone II, so it’s an opportunity to capture and treat the effluent from the adjacent neighborhoods that are currently contributing the effluent from their septic systems into our drinking water.” 

 By taking this approach, the “private developer who undertook the housing project would be bearing a large portion of the cost burden of building that wastewater infrastructure,” he said. 

 Residents who spoke in opposition of the study at the Jan. 5 select board meeting referred to the parcel as an environmentally sensitive area that was not conducive to development, which would require a wastewater treatment plant for fear of groundwater contamination. 

 Chatelain also noted the amount of public comment the select board received at the Jan. 5 meeting, saying many residents brought up “excellent questions and questions that we all share.”

 “I also think there was a lot of concern among folks that if the project was referred to the trust that the opportunities for public engagement would end, the community would lose control of the project and [the AHT] would be able to do whatever we want,” he said. “We here know that that’s not true; there is a lengthy, deliberate public process that has to be undertaken.” 

 To help alleviate those concerns, part of the AHT’s next steps should be communicating to the select board that the trust board understands the limited charge which emphasizes public engagement and information dissemination, he said.

In beginning to lay out the process for the feasibility study, assistant town manager Donna Kalinick referenced the project off Millstone Road, Spring Rock Village. 

 She said the two-year feasibility study conducted on that property included multiple rounds of community engagement covering “stakeholder meetings, three public meetings and a visual preference survey” which greatly informed the process and the final report.

Part of the reason for the delay in the feasibility study for Spring Rock Village was due to a watershed study. This was done because of abutter concerns over flooding.  

 The first step for the trust regarding the pond parcel will be to develop a work plan. A draft will be presented to the trust as early as Feb. 5. The trust will likely send in an application for the technical assistance program developed by the Massachusetts Housing Partnership to conduct feasibility studies — something the AHT did for Spring Rock Village. 

 The AHT will discuss the specifics of public engagement further at its Feb. 5 session, deciding whether or not outside assistance is needed to help facilitate what that would look like. 

 Paul Ruchinskas, a member of the AHT, asked for more information on what went into the initial conceptual plans for housing on the property, given the 44-unit proposal which was in the comprehensive plan. 

 “The pond committee asked the consultant to come up with a concept plan based on what was doable,” said Timothy Hackert, member of the AHT and former pond committee member. “They basically went back and looked at zoning and other issues and came up with a plan which they presented to the pond planning committee. It was nothing other than a very high level [idea] of what would work based on the global zoning, all the constraints and normal development issues.” 

 Hackert said that was a very preliminary look at the property and did not include the level of detail a feasibility study would have. 

 Kalinick said the number of units provided by the consultant was only for transparency purposes as the maximum number that could be potentially put on the property. She said this was needed for town meeting in order to give residents context, but was never an official proposal for what would be developed. 

 Part of the discussion surrounded the amount of reports and information the town already has on the Sea Camps properties — around 1,000 pages. Kalinick asked members how they would like to fully digest the information moving forward. Chatelain said setting the process at the next meeting might help determine how to break down the information after. 

 Hackert said the most important decision moving forward is to determine the scope of the feasibility study. He then suggested bringing that information to a public setting, to go over why the key pieces of information will be helpful in informing a decision about a potential housing development on the property. 

 Chatelain agreed with Hackert’s assessment, saying that while the feasibility plan vote may seem simple, it becomes incredibly complex when broken down. 

 “This project will need to go back to town meeting for approval at some point,” he said. “I think the question on my mind is when, in our process, will we have enough information to make that a fruitful exercise?” 

 Many of the members agreed that looking at previously completed feasibility studies would be helpful in determining the scope of the pond property study. Hackert said it would be beneficial to look at one that has been conducted in a Zone II. 

 Chatelain will be reporting on the trust’s initial discussion at the select board meeting on Jan. 26, followed by an examination of the draft work plan at the AHT’s meeting on Feb. 5.