Loading...
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.