No preview available
1998-07-01Don Martin, Chairman Neiland Douglas,Vice-Chairman Norwood Pond Commission Kevin Burke Tina Cassidy William Frost Todd Lampert David Lang J. Michael Lawler Virginia McGlynn Joyce McMahon Bruce Nardella MEETING MINUTES JULY 1, 1998 Members present; Chairman Don Martin, Vice-Chdirman Neiland Duuglds, J. Michael Lawler, Joyce McMahon, Bill Frost, Virginia McGlynn, David Lang, Kevin Burke, Tina Cassidy and Frank Killilea. Chairman Martin calls the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. and asks if any members of the public present wish to make comments or ask questions. Ron Johnnsen states that he is concerned with the industrial development for the southern end of Norwood Pond (ie: water quality, aquifer, etc.), that it seems that the thrust of the Commission is building the overpass and getting it done. He wonders if among any members of the Commission, have any reservations/negativity with respect to the industrial development of that area. He states that development of industry is a negative aspect for Open space, wildlife, etc., and asks how much can be developed in this area. Frost explains that the job of the Commission is to find out if this project is feasible at all, that it is not the Commission's intent to find out that this whole thing might not be feasible, and the overpass is an intregal part of the study. Johnsen states that he would like to see development discussed a little more throughout the commission's discussions. Martin states that no one in tile commission would want to negativelyaffect Norwood Pond, that the process has only been going on for 4-5 months, that it takes time. He asks that the public not assume anything about the Commission's final recommendations at this point. Johnsen asks what will happen to th epond if industrial development does ocur. Mcmahon states that it is a step by step process and part of the commission's job to research every Norwood Pond Cosmission July 1, 1998 Meeting Page Two aspect, that the Planning Board would have to investigate if someone comes forward with a plan. She states that no one on the Commission would advocate large scale industrial development without concern for the pond. She suggests that the public let the Co~l~ission investigate everything that is going On first. Johnsen states that people are concerned with the orange stream and that the industrial development should be a different question. David Lang joins the meeting at this time. McMahon states that it is all part of the whole analysis, give the process a chance. Mr. jim Alberghini states that he has concerns with what endangers the pond, and notes that flooding would have a direct result on the pond. Douglas states that the process at this point is for the Commission to be concerned with open space. He explains that the bulk of Norwood Pond and the southern perimeter/sector does not appear suitable for any industrial development, but that he senses a sign that the Commission wants to introduce some industrial aspects because the balance of the land contains some property zoned for business and industry. Douglas further states that he met with business owners, that they don't have many questions regardxng the process, that they are all very supportive Of the work of this Commission and like the idea that the Commission is introducing the possibility of access/egress improvements to the Dunham Road/Brimbal Avenue area. Alberghini asks how much land is going to be used. Douglas states that he would have to rely on the Conservation Commission's instinct regarding aspects to that, that it w~ll have to be advanced in a way that any environmental impact is considered. Alberghini states that bio-diversity is an important issue, that it will affect wildlife enormously, and notes that there is a lot of wildlife in this area to consider. He suggests that the Co~nission hire someone with great expertise in this field when sizing up the area. Elise Bernstein states that she always feels better when David Lang is present, that she appreciates his truth. She also states that she shares Ron Johnsen's concerns, that the study the Conunission agreed to do is to take an honest look at the traffic that will affect Brimbal Avenue. She further adds that the North Norwood Pond C----ission July 1, 1998 Meeting Page Three Shore Music Theater and the Maestranzi's would be looking forward to this overpass project because they would benefit from it greatly. Douglas states that there would be a need for some type of access/egress to Rt. 128 for these businesses if an overpass was introduced. Lang asks what will happen if an overpass is not built, do these businesses have a Plan A/Plan B. Douglas states no, the discussions were very preliminary. He further states that they did ask these business owners if they have site plans of the property, (ie: topography, wetlands), and adds that it was very clear to him that the Maestranzi's know that their land isn't very buildable at present. Lawler states that he believes that the original charge of the Commission when formed was to try to improve the traffic situation on/off Brimbal Avenue, to try to improve the current traffic flows, and secondary to that, the Commission is to be concerned with how to handle the commercial/industrial aspects. He states that the Commission will think tfirough all aspects very carefully, that the Commission is here to improve traffic on Brimbal Avenue and Dunham Road. Lang states that he believes access to Norwood Pond is why the Commission was formed, that there is this large parcel of land that could be developed, and that the Commission's job is to try to figure out a way to utilize the land to its maximum potential. A member of the public asked how far along has the study gone, and what value to the City will the overpass bring. Douglas states that he is not certain how much land is there, useable, accessable; that there are clearly a lot of wetlands scattered throughout the area, and that only 2-3 parcels of land on the north side of Rt. 128 are useable. This member of the public asks how far does the Commission plan to go with their plans for an overpass. Martin explains that it may not even be feasible to do the overpass. Next, Cassidy explains to the members that she thinks she inadvertently mailed the wrong set of minutes to be reviewed out, and suggests that the minutes of the June 3, 1998 meeting be approved at the Commission's next meeting scheduled for August 5, 1998. Cassidy: motion to approve the minutes of the June 3, 1998 meeting at the Commission's next meeting scheduled for August 5, 1998, seconded by McMahon. All members in favor, motion carries. Norwood Pond Cnmmtssion July 1, 1998 Meeting Page Four Next, Martin passes out and reads to the members a letter requesting the Department of Public Services to clean up the remaining debris at Norwood Pond. McMahon states that she has spoken with department and they will clean up the Pond in the fall, post bug season. Next, Martin tells the members that the meetings with Salem News, Hasbro and Cycles 128 were fruitful, that these businesses may be sending future site plans to the Commission in the near future, and that he left with a good feeling that these business owners want to work with the Commission too. Douglas states that the meeting was short and not in detail, but that they will be joining the Commission for the whole process. Kevin Burke joins the meeting at this time. (8:05 p.m.) Lawler asks if these businesses intend to have a long term commitment to Beverly. Douglas states that these business owners would like to see a better way of getting in and out of the area, and if there is any expectation at some future date of an overpass, they would like to see it happen. Martin states that the North Shore Music Theater is concerned with Dunham Road and its inability, at present, to handle traffic flows. Next, members get an update from Frank Killilea with respect to pump station repairs. Killilea explains that two weeks ago the City installed a pump, watched it for several hours and decided everything was working fine. The next week, the City went back to monitor the pump and about half way through the week the pump was not working, so the City brought in their consultants as well as their own personnel to determine if there was enough power/ voltage in the pole. Both parties concluded that the power/ voltage was okay, so it was then determined that the motor needed upgrading. Killilea states that a new pump was installed and has been working ever since. He further states that the City installed an emergency overflow switch that will send a signal over to the Salem SESD when there is a problem. Virginia McGlynn joins the meeting at this time. (8:10 p.m.) McMahon asks if the back-up pump was put in. Killilea explains that the first pump was put in, but it did not work properly, so it was pulled out, and the spare pump was installed which was determined to be undersized, so the City ordered a new, larger size pump motor, had it installed and it has been working ever since. Lang asks if leachate is still getting into the brook. Killilea states that he is not aware of any, and explains that the City's Norwood Pond Commission July 1, 1998 Meeting Page Five consultant, Talkington Edson, placed an earthen berm around the pump station, but that rain storms washed it out to the very bottom, so they re-excavated that material, cleaned it up, and put down some hard material to prevent another washout. He further explains that they installed granite curbing to act as a block, and to direct the flow of water away from the pump. Killilea notes that they cleaned out all the material in the catch basins, that they were all silted up from the dam and from road run-off. Lang states that this is a serious problem that needs to be corrected, and suggested that the City use haybales around the pump station as well so there won't be another washout, thus sediment and leachate getting into the brook. Next, Martin asks members if they have any comments on the sampling results report. McMahon states that the iron and manganese samples exceed State thresholds, and asks if the City is going to follow the recommendations made in the report. Killilea explains that they have selected e firm to further study Norwood Pond. He also explains that Malcolm Pirnie is scheduled to do a second round of testing this week, with a report to be submitted to DEP by August, 1998, which will determine what additional testing the City will want to do. Lang states as an observation that the chemical analyses creates a problem, and asks what the time frame for testing Norwood Pond by Baystate is. Cassidy explains that a firm has been selected, that a first round of testing is to take place in July, and notes that this is a several month process. Douglas asks when the whole process of capping will begin. Killilea states that capping will start in January/February, but that some rubbish needs to be moved first. A member of the public notes that the roadway into the dump will get quite active, and asks if there will be any up-grading done to the roadway. Killilea states that he doesn't see the City going in and paving the roadway, but that they might put down some gravel to raise the grade. Douglas states that there are a couple of business owners that are concerned with what is going to run-off that roadway and onto their property. Martin asks how long it will take to cap the dump. Killilea states that the capping will be complete by November 1999. Norwood Pond Commission July 1, 1998 Neering Page Six Martin asks if the City is depending on fill from the "Big Dig". Killilea states that it is highly unlikely that the City will be receiving fill from the Big Dig, that there is no guarantee of excavate, but that they there is still a small likelihood that excavate will be used. Killilea explains that the City intends to use the material dumped there, and that they will shape the earth in preparation of putting down the cap. Burke asks Killilea states that one purpose of the Commission is to try to identify a future use of the landfill, and notes that the City's consultants have to met DEP requirements, (ie: granule material, passive gas system), and that there is no building proposed at this time, so the landfill will be capped for a minimal end use. Burke asks if the City will need to bring additional material to the site. Killilea explains that there is already material sitting there and that there will be settlement. Martin asks who determines what future usee of the landfill are safe. Killilea explains that DEP has different requirements depending upon what the landfill will be used for. Lang asks if the Commission should specifically approach DEP with a use for the landfill. Killilea states that this is the time to be deciding what the Commission would want to use the landfill for at a future date/intended purpose, that we should cap with an intention in mind. Douglas asks if it is possible to make a more immediate use of the landfill without waiting years for reuse. Killilea explains that Malcolm Pirnie is going to continue to do environmental studies before and after capping, and that they will continue to monitor gas emissions for years. Douglas states that he gets the impression that the Commission does not have a more immediate use in mind at this time, and asks Killilea's opinion if such a use could be advanced in the future, and if so, what would be necessary to make use of the property feasible. Burke asks what other landfills across the State have been used for once they have been capped, and suggests that the Commission ask DEP what would need to be done for capping purposes, if the Commission decides to use this land in the future. Killilea states that he will ask the City's consultant, Malcolm Pirnie for their expertise, and what would be involved if the Commission decided to use the land for recreational use (ie: playing fields). Norwood Pond Com~ission July 1, 1998 Meeting Page Seven Burke questions the plan that is to be submitted to DEP. Killilea states that they intend to submit a no excavate capping plan, with a 5% slope (which seems to be the minimum slope required). Cassidy states that her only concern as the Commission looks into the possible changes to the landfill is the question of time frame, costs, deadlines and that she understands that missing any deadlines contained in the consent decree with DEP will have significant financial implications for the City. Lang asks if the grading plan has been submitted. Killilea states that a preliminary plan is already in, and the final is due by October of 1998. plan McGlynn asks how many years after the landfill is capped can it be altered. Killilea explains that the City could potentially add to the landfill as long as the cap doesn't get punctured. Lang notes that it would require significant approval from DEP. Douglas: motion to invite representatives of Malcolm Pirnie to attend the next meeting with information regarding future uses of the landfill, seconded by Lawler. All members in favor, motion carries. Next, members get an update from Frank Killilea with respect to progress on engineering design of an overpass and associated transportation improvements. He explains that the City is in the process of interviewing several engineering firms that the City has already interviewed one firm, but wants to talk with three others. He notes that the City would like to have a firm selected by the middle of July. Lang asks what criteria the City will use in selecting a firm - will cost be a factor. Killilea responds yes, and states that the firm will have to have knowledge of both bridge and roadway design, and the Beverly community. Lang States that he is not in favor of hiring a firm for a full design, but rather to develop preliminary, conceptual designs only. Douglas asks if the City is looking at more than one plan, that there are many alternative plans. Killilea states that the firm selected must have flexibility. Martin asks once the firm is selected, when will the Commission have something before it. Killilea states that a decision on which firm will be hired will be made by the middle of July, and that one of the first things to be done will be to get the Norwood Pond Commission July 1, 1998 Meeting Page Eight Commission's input as to what the Commission wants the Consultant to consider in their initial preliminary plans. Next, Martin asks the m~mhers to comment upon the scope of the Commission's future work efforts. Douglas states that the Commission might be able to wrap up it's efforts by the end of the year. Martin states that he wants to finish discussion of the feasibility of an overpass. Lang states that he wants to analyze the development potential of the area in light of the costs associated with construction of an overpass. Lawler states that the Commission should take a look at the cost versus the benefits, that people are concerned with that. Martin asks about grant money. Cassidy states that there might be some available, that there is some potential there, but that she doesn't have any of those plans yet. Lang asks if there is a plan process to determine how development potential there is with this project. McMahon states that the Economic and Community Development Council has previously worked on similar analyses and could undertake a similar study for the Norwood Pond/landfill area. Martin notes that the next regular meeting of the Commission will be held on Wednesday, August 5, 1998 at 7:30 p.m. at City Hall. He asks if there are any members of the public who wish to address the group before adjourning the meeting. A member of the public asks in the course of capping the dump, how many dump trucks will travel in and out of the landfill. Killilea states that he does not have preliminary numbers on this subject. Douglas: motion to adjourn, seconded by Lawler. All members in favor, motion carries. Meeting is adjourned at 9:00 p.m.