1999-02-10City of Beverly, Massachusetts
Public Meeting Minutes
Board: Norwood Pond Commission
Subcommittee:
Date: February 10, 1999
Place: Beverly Public Library, 32 Essex Street
Board Members Present: Donald Martin, Nelland Douglas, Tina Cassidy, William
Frost, David Lang, J. Michael Lawler, Virginia McGlynn, Joyce McMahon
Board Members Absent: Todd Iampert, Kevin Burke, Bruce Nardella
Others Present: Frank Killilea, City Engineer
Recorder: Carol A. Pearce
Chairman Martin calls the meeting to order at 7:00 P.M.
Chairman Martin remarks that on February 18, 1999 the ECDC will meet with HTSD
to continue discussion on the economic impact analysis which was discussed several
times over the past year, and then asks if there is any public comment.
Ron Johnson states his feelings about playing fields behind the elementary school and
indicates his concern is where the Commission is looking, and that the proposed
Recreation and Open Space Committee would look at the entire community. He states
that the access road bothers him end feels it would be expensive. He states the estimated
cost is $300,000 and feels this money could be better spent acquiring the Johnson Tree
Farm within the next year and leaving the area behind North Beverly Elementary School
i~ee of bali fields. Mr. Johnson feels this could remain an area where residents could
enjoy passive recreation rather than having extensive bah fields.
Renee Mary asks what time the meeting will be on the 18m of Febntary, and Tina Cassidy
replies it will begin at 6:30 P.M.
Landfill Land Use
Chairman Martin notes the next item of business is Landfall Land Use and indicates that
the Mayor last month committed to putting ball fields on the former landfill. He states
there will be an item presented to the City Council Tuesday night calling for a risk
assessment to be done. He then asks for comments fi'om Commission members on the
landfill issue.
Mr. Lang states at the last meeting there was talk about ball fields and comments were
submitted to the Mayor about cutting grades from five percent to three percent. He states
additional correspondence was written and feels the Commission was sent copies of some
but not all of this correspondence. Lang further states that a lot of work on this issue has
been done on his part but he is not sure where things stand. He notes other towns with
ballfield designs for their landfills were looked at and feels there is work that Beverly
cottld do to find out how things are proceeding in those communities. He states the
Norwood Pond Commission
Meeting Minutes- 2/10/99
Page 2.
Mayor comrn~ted to risk assessment but thlnk~ a corresponding commitment flom the
Coii.~ii~sion would be a good thing.
Lang further wants to know if the Commission is willing to do more work on this or just
table it, which he feels would be a mi~ke. He states that in his opinion the only
advocates of baH fields are he and the public.
Mr. Douglas feels there is strong interest for the establishment of active recreational
facilities represented on the Conm~i-~sion by many members, nut just lVlr. Lang. The
questions are where, and the scale, and the timing. He states his feeling would be that the
Commission has talcan some actions that have led to ehnnges in the d~velopment phn for
the landfill capping that presumed there would be some use for thi.q fac'~ity at some future
point and knows that the changes don't quite meet the objectives lVir. Lang had in mln d
with regard to sloping and sculpting the d~mp: itself and feels there was an openness to
entertain active or passive use, and the City Council took appropriate action for that to
oc,~ur by setting aside money forthe risk assessment at soma future point.
Douglas furlher states he does nut know if there is anything more the Commission can do
but to state this is an appropriate use forthe fac'~ity. He feels it is important to wait for
an engineering analysis of suitability to allow for d~velopme~t when the dissipation of
whatever emissions have sobsided to a level to make it safe to use that fac'ffity. He
further feels the Commigsion has takan all steps necessary and reminds Lang that these
steps were taken at his urging.
Mr. Lsn~ states it is important for the Colm~ksion to continue the education process and
nut to argue for an hour at every meeting about this subject, but feels there is an
important job the Board could do over a three to four month period by collecting
information. He indicates that Beverly needs to set the record straight by Wlklng to
Gloucester to see what they did to get their landfill lipproved and also talk to La_wrance.
He feels it is important that the Coi~i~sion provide a recommendation when the risk
assessment comes back in a year and a half and be able to say that we have looked at this
when the decision is made forthe North Beverly School or Norwood Pond or a
combination of the North Beverly School and Norwood Pond, He further indicates that
there could be two or three ball fields on the landfill, and ifthat's possible, then there is
no pressure to plsce them at the North Beverly School or Norwood Pond and feels this
would not conflict with anything the City has done but might give more information in a
year or two.
Martin states he does not feel there is any pressure to put fields anywhere. He further
states he would be happy to work with Lang in talking with Gloucester.
Norwood Pond Commission
Meeting Minutes - 2/10/99
Page 3.
Mr. Lawlet states he would be willing to work along with Lang in this regard. Lang
states follow-up needs to be done on everything.
Mr. Frost states he concurs with Lang and states the project has gone to a whole different
plateau. He indicates that Malcolm Pirnie presented the Commission with three options.
He agrees that it seems like the Commission went fi'om August with one half of the
members at the meeting to September when there was a vote. He states that it seems
decisions were made very quickly without looking at the other options and states he
would be happy to assist in this project.
Chairman Martin asks for other comments fi'om the Commission. There being none, he
moves to the next topic.
Next Steps
Chairman Martin makes a recommendation that the Commission consider issuing an
interim report on its accomplishments to date and ks efforts in the next year..
Douglas states that the Commission has been meeting for about a year and that work has
entalled consideration of a lot of different issues.
Frost indicates an engineering study of the pond and field visits with property owners
raised a myriad of other concerns that have been expressed either by residents or by other
City officials and states it appears that there exists a number of questions o~r opinions
relative to the direction that the Massachusetts Highway and Department might take for
transportation improvements in thi~ area and feels as a result it might be timely to take
stock of where there is some consensus of opinlon.
Frost further states that the report would outline where the Commission is at the present
time and any agreements members have reached or could reach with additional~sCudies.
He states that the Commission should wait until the results of the engineering analyses
are completed for the pond and the transportation improvements and try to finalize the
report at a subsequent meeting. He feels that based on what has taken place and the
status of things, the Commission should see a report~ at least on a number of points
around which the Commission has some potential agreement, and states the Commission
should take stock of the situation and prepare such a report.
Lang questions who would be the author of the report and how it would be reviewed by
the Board and voted on. He notes it seems like a noble unclerisking, but difficult to get
done in a month.
Norwood Pond Commission
Meeting Minutes- 2/10/99
Page 4.
Douglas states he feels this could be done in a month and feels there are a number of
areas where opinions seem to reflect a consensus. He indicates the broad objectives of
highway related engineering and planning have expanded from just building an overpass
to one that involves soma upgrading of the Brlmhal] Avenue intersection. He feels there
is consensus to set aside the majority of the 200 acres on the campus property for passive
recreation and conselNation purposes, and feels there are a number of different areas of
opinion where members are more in harmony than in disagreement.
Douglas states that as far as writing, he would direct the Chair in conjunction with Tina
Cassidy to come up with a draft and make certain all members of the Commission have
an oppommity to review it in advance of the next meeting and review and discuss it at the
next meeting when the public could attend.
Lang states he feels it may be premature to issue an interim report since there is no
traffic analysis or design yet. He feels that he doe~ 't know anough about the interchange
to make recommendations on it or reach conclusions on it.
Douglas notes as an example that the report might state the Comrnlssion's be consensus
that the project itself should entail the redesign of the intersection and not just the
construction of an overpass because all an overpass would achieve is relocation of traffic
fTom Dunham Road to Brimbal Avenue. He indicates the Commission may be in a
position to 'test the waters' with respect to soma of the basic concerns and issues the
Commission faced, whether or not members are in agreement. He states that the land
which is suitable and zoned for industrial development can be developed and should be,
perhaps including Hasbro and the Music Theater, who are the principal users in this area.
Lang wants to know if this is going to be mentioned in the report, and Douglas replies
that it will.
Ms. McMahon states that all minutes of past Coi~i~i ssion meetings should be iiviewed
for the preparation of the interim report. She explains to members that several years ago
she sponsored an Order which the City Council passed that resulted in the Norwood Pond
site and former Camevale property to be open space for conservation and recreation.
Unless there is a subsequent vote by the City Council, this Order will remain in effect,
Mr. Douglas states he objects to the idea of a large recreational complex behind the
school and indicates it is not something the Commission would probably embrace, He
feels soma active recreational use at the school would be complementary but states it is
not on the former state-owned property, but rather behind the school within the existing
15 to 20 acre tract. Douglas further indicates he feels there are a number of areas of
agreement to be expressed and that the Commission should present those areas to the
Norwood Pond Commission
Norwood Pond Commission
Meeting Minutes - 2/10/99
Page 5.
Mayor and City Cooncil while writing forthe final engineering analyses to be completed,
which would be in the fall.
Lawler concurs and indicates he feels it is time to let the Mayor and the City know where
the Commission stands. He feels the CommiRsion may continue work for another year or
two and feels an interim report is neede&
Cassidy suggests the Commission report all efforts made to date and topics the
Commigsion has discussed. She also feels the report should also contain a summary of
all the things the Cornmission still does not have, whether it be the preliminary design or
angineering studies for the road plan or the Norwood Pond Management Study which
was just publi.~hed on January 14~ She feels this may or may nut have an impaet on
recommendations for use ofthe pond for recreation. MAC. assidy also lists the ECDC
study which is outstanding, whether it be the master plan for the parks, being done by the
Recreation Commission. Also important is where baHfields, comfort stalions and parking
could be located on the North Beverly School or Norwood Pond site. She states she
would like to think that these would be included in the reporL
MeGlynn states it is interesting that in the be~nlng the Commission members were
pretty ,ra,ch in aSroement but feels now there are several thinEs on which the
Co,~ml~sionnowneedsadefmkiveanswcr. She feels the Commi~sion's efforts to date
are in~.ressive but feels there are a lut of issues on which no decisions have yet been
made.
Lang states he feels thi~ could be accomplished in six months to a year. He further states
that thi~ group voted for the passive recreation for the landfill early and that some of us
gut more information as time went on. He nutes that he at least may have changed his
vote if he knew that the buffer zone was an option. He is concerned that consensus
reached now may have to change as additional reports and information develop over the
next three or four months. He indicates the report study is good but seeing a ro~'d map of
accomplishments might not be in the best interests of the group.
Cassidy suggests the report should state that thi~ is the consensus to date, buI that
additional information that may come to light in the future might change that consensus
later. The report should clearly reflect this possibility.
Douglas nutes that this is a point well take~t He states if there are things and
opportunities that can be done now to serve the interests of the City, he feels the Mayor
and City Council would be interested in testing the waters with respect to funding for a
redesign of the interchange rather than just construction of an overpass. He feels there is a
lot of leverage to do a project ofthis type but it takes time and agreement betwee~ the
Norwood Pond Commission
Meeting Minutes- 2/10/99
Page 6.
City's leadersh~ to get the wheels rimnlng in a certain directioH, and thinks it would be a
productive undertaking.
Lang expresses concern that the Commission will be misquoted or misinterpreted at a
future point in time. Doughs replies that that is something outside of the Commission' s
control and is not a good reason fur not issuing an interim report.
Lang wants to know if it would mnke sense that prior to drafting the report we advertise
in the newspaper for a large informational meeting and get more input from the
oomm~fity before we put together a document.
McMahon notes that regardless of any communication either written or verbal which
could be taken out of context, the Commission should draR a report that all members are
comfortable. She states we need to get a draR report on paper and have all members
review it and make sure there is consensus. She states this would be a report from the
CommissiOn, not based on any public heating and input. She states that public input is a
necessity for some fixture work efforts but net as part of a report issued by this
Co.i.ii~on~ She notes the Commission should have one or two public meetings to hear
from the oommqlfity On the CommiSSiOn' S work in general
Lawler insIces a motion to vote to authorize the Chairman to draR an interim report which
would review Coii,,,,i~sion efforts to date and mention some consensus points reached
and list outstanding items on which members have not yet made a decision. He agrees it
will take several months to finalize. Seconded by Doughs. Frost and Lang abstain, all
other members in favor. Motion carries 7-2.
Mr..Martin notes that the Commission has looked at maps of the weftands where the
vernal pools and forests are and would like to addreSS the idea ofssking the Mayor to
authorize engineering studies on the Norwood Pond area and what potential uses_there
might be for that area (i e., ballfields), and states that this study would be limited to City-
owned land.
Lawler questions how much the engineering study would cost. Mr. Killilea states it
would have to be dune by consulting engineers and notes that it would probably cost
between $25,000 and $40,000 just to asseSS existing conditions.
McMahon wants to know if it would include Land use options. Lawler questions the need
to spend $40,000 to $50,000 to do a survey on Land which we could keep and use for
open space and recreation purposes. He feels the Commission could lay ou~ a map and
come up with What would be here or there.
Norwood Pond Commi-~sion
Me~fi.,g Minutes - 2/10/99
Page 7.
Martin states his content is talking about putting a buffer zone behind the elementary
school and questions whether there are other, more suitable locations for playing fields.
Lang states one thing usetiff and essential is to take a USGS topographical map and that
thk would specifically evaluate the wetlands and for $5,000 or $10,000 the Con.i~i~sion
could got the wotlands delineation of the area.
Douglas questions how m. ch of the City has been mapped out by the Conservation
CommisSiOn, and Lang replies it is only the developed areas. Douglas than states he
agrees with Mr. Lang that wetland delineation would be useful on the City-owned land
and notes that he also understands where Mr. LawleT is coming from,
Douglas farther states that forthe City-owned land areas behind the school it would be
useful to know what is wetlands and what is potentially developable.
McMahon asks ifprellmln ary construction plans for the North Beverly Elementary
School are available for review, and a meatbeT of the public states that the current plans
call forthe removal of a few trees at the back of the school area.
McMahon states that the City should review all information that is available, and all the
drainage work needs to be taken into consideration with respect to how that will affea
the area.
Douglas questions avaihb'flity of funds for this study project, and McMahon states the
Co,--.;~sion would have to request an appropriation by the Mayor, which would require
City Council authorization. ff submitted and approved, then the appropriation could be
spent.
Martin calls for other comments from the Commission.
Douglas notes it would be helpful to know if the area could support being used for
passive recreation.
Martin makes mofon that the Commission request that the City conduot a wetlands
delineation study on all City-owned land surrounding Norwood Pond excluding the
Camevale property. Seconded by Lang. McMahon suggests the motion be amended and
that the Mayor be asked to provide funding, and LawleT agrees to the amendment. All in
favor, motion carries.
Martin calls for comment from the public.
Norwood Pond Commission
Meeting Minutes - 2/10/99
Page 8.
Phil~ DunHebarger wants to tensware the Comm½~ion that the motion to issue an interim
report will be real helpful to give an oppOfom'_~y to get a compendium ofdiffgrent issues
and what the Commission comes up with, and thinks if the Commission comes up with a
report, you have individual members and if those individual members want to append
statement expressing their points of view, then it would be appropriate. He feels this
would be very useful because there would be specific issues that everybody would be
reacting to and subrn;ilhtg WlRten suggestions~
Mr. D~mHebarger admits he hasn't been to too many meetings and wants to how if areas
of industrial development have been addi~s~ He states that he feels there are some
issues that are more sensitive than others and sees industrial development as one of them
He indicates that he hopes the Commission would try to focus on what oppommities are
there. He notes that if that has been handled by the Coim~ission, thi~ is good, but wants
to see it in the report rather than somethin~ that is on the om,~irts. He states that he feels
thi~ is a key element~
McMahon states that the Commission has asked the City' s Economic and Community
Development Council ('ECDC') to conduet an economic impact snMysis of this area.
She notes that the ECDC will discuss the matter at its meeting at 6:30 P.M. on 2/18/99 in
this building.
Mr. Dunklebarger states that he hopes the draft would be delayed long e~ongh to include
that information in the draR.
Cathy Burack states she feels the report is a great idea, but feels that what has been
missing is the voice of the Commission in a direct way to the public. She feels there has
been no formal communication with the public. She states the oppommity to cxeate a
report so that people can hear from the Commission on where the Commission stands is
really a good idea.
Ms Burack also wants m know about a process question. She states that the Brimbal
Avenue Neighborhood Association has a lot of volunteers and has pledged funds to
create a North Beverly Neighborhood Park behind the elementary school She wants to
know if there is a way to piggy-back the study being done on the !and use behind the
North Beverly Elementary School. She further wants to knowif the Commission would
like to have a proposal submitted to them or directly to the City Council Martin advises
that he would prefer it be submined direaly to the City Council.
McMahon suggests that final recommendations from this Commission may not be
developed for another year and that construction of the school is probably four to five
years in the future. She feels the best bet would be to go to the City Council and say we
Norwood Pond Con.nission
Meeting Minutes - 2/10/99
Page 9.
how that the Norwood Pond Commission is looking at this but the neighborhood wants
something now.
Cathy Burack indicates she would rather wait and put something back there that really
does mean somethin?~ so that there is some money for upkeep. She states it would need
to be consiste~t with what the Recreation Department would want to see and wonders
whether the Commission would consider that proposal Doughs states he would be
interesting in receive Ms Burack's thoughts and recommendations.
Burack adds that regarding giving the Commlasion a voice, she will provide mailing for
association members if the Commission wants to mail information to the public.
Cassidy asks Ms. Burack if a lot ofpl~nnlng has been done for the playground and
Burack states it is a combination of ~maH fllmily play areas, out of the woods in an
educational way. They have learning stations available forthe school and anybody else
interested in going through there. She states it is more oriented toward f~milles rather
than SPOrtS teams~
MeGlynn states this would have to be considered by the School Department and the
Recreation Depa~iment but that the Commission would be open to see what they have.
Richard Roundy talks about the overpassfmterchange isaac and wants to know if any
information has come tiom the Commission to anyone planning what is going to be the
shape of the interchange or overpass~ Cassidy replies that HTSD was at the January
meeting and that they had a very preliminary phm showing project improvements at this
point. Cassidy further states she can get Mr. Roondy a copy of the plan, but Mr. Roundy
wants to know if it is going to be an interchange or an overpass.. Cassidy responds it
will be an interchange with an overpass.
McMahon states that Beverly has hired an engineering firm that has been doing i traffic
study and putting information together and will be getting back to the Commission and
the Mayor with recommendations.
Roundy wants to know if the Committee has a consensus that they would not approve
anything that did not include an interchange rather than an overpass, and Martin responds
that the Commission is waiting for additional design information before making such a
deterrain ation~
hence Mary wants to know if the Committee meeting on the 18th would have answers for
Mr. Roundy. McMahon responds that the goal of the ECDC is to conduct an economic
impact analysis for the Commission's use, not to critique a possible roadway design.
Norwood Pond Commission
Meeting Minutes - :2/10/99
Page 10.
Martin questions the length of the upcoming Master Plan process, and Cassidy responds
she thinic~ the Master Plan process is going to take 12 to 18 months, and feeis this
Commission is in a much better position to focus efforts on Norwood Pond. Cassidy
notes that the City is forming an Evaluation Committee and hopes to select a consultant
by the end of Marda, and start in April
Babette Loring, 573 Hale Streel, states that a number of playgrounds have been built on
former d. mp sites and feels this would be an area to look into. Lang says there are 20
communities under consent decrees and had to close dumps and there was never an issue
to the towns in the past about the bah fields on top of the landfill.
Terri Dee, 56 Putnam St., reports the Commission should consider an economic analysis
with regard to the oveapass or interchange. He also favors an environme~ttal impact
statement, which is broader than the economic impa~t and hopes that environmental
considerations would be included~
Douglas noes that on the subject of the environmental impact analysis, a de~nkive plan
must incorporate an environmental impact plan before any design is fmalized.
McMahon says the ECDC will be Ionking at what type of buildings might be allowed
and uses an example that anything like a chemical plant would never be allowed on the
site.
Cassidy notes that HTSD will be doing a complete trafifc analysis, and h will have to be
done before any plan is accepted.
Dee states she was concerned talking about the map and if we knew where the wetlands
were and so on and feels k would be good if the Commission could include a scale model
showing where the school is, where the parkinE lot is going to be, and where it is
intended to place some things or what is wetlands and what is old growth forestT She
states that she hopes this can be accomplished. McMahon reminds Dee that the report
coming out is nut final, and that is it ouly preliminary and will not have this level of
Dan DoAngelis wants to know if more !and use restrictions could be put on the Norwood
Pond area to limit use in the future, and Martin replies they could.
Martin discusses scheduling the next meeting of the Commission and suggests April
because he needs time to draR the interim report. He indicates he hopes to have the draR
completed by March 15m and get it out to the Commission members for review. The
next meeting is scheduled for April 7, 1999, location to be announced.
Norwood Pond Commission
Meeting Minutes - 7,/10/99
Page 11.
Lawler makes a motion to adjourn thi~ meeting, seconded by McMahon. All members in
favor, meeting adjourned.