Loading...
2000-06-07CITY OF BEVERLY, ~CHUSETI~ PUBLIC MEETING MINUTF-~ BOARD OR COMMISSION: SUBCOMMITTEE: DATE: MEMBERS PRE~ENT: MEMBERS ABSENt. OTHERS PRE/~ENT: RECORDER: Norwood Pond Commission June 7, 2000 Chai, l,mn Don Martin, Vice-Chai,,,:arl Neiland Douglas, Bill Frost, David LanE, Tina Cassidy, Joyce McMahon, Bruce Nardella, J. Michael Lawler, Virginia McGlynn Kevin Burke, Todd Lampert City Engineer Frank Killilea Tina Cassidy Chairman Martin calls thc mccting to order at 7:00 p.m. and states that the first agenda item is public input. He asks if any members of the public wish to address the commission. Ron Johnsen, Brimbal Avenue, states that the consensus of the commission seems to be that the land around Norwood Pond should be used for passive recreation, and suggests it be put in conservation land. He believes adding baILqelds to this site would have a negative impact with potential flooding problems. He believes there is little sentiment on the commission to support dredging of the pond, and that as an alternative the City should cut the lily pads when they emerge. He believes there would never be enough visitors to the property to req~Jire the construction of an access road, and says that volunteers could maint~i~ trails and pick up trash on the property. Martin asks if there is any other public conunent. There is none. Next, Martin explains that this meeting will be thc last mca-ting of this ad-hoc committee. A draft fmol report was sent to each member in advance of the meeting, and he proposes to review each page of the draft to gather members' comments and fil~ali~ the document for submission to the Mayor and City Council. McMahon offers several editing changes to the second page which the committee agrccs should be made. Lang asks if the $11-$12 million figure cited for construction costs includes the cost of land acquisitions. Killilea state8 that it docs not. Douglas states that although there will be some acquisition costs they will not be extensive. The only property that will be directly impacted will be Parker Brothers, and the project will be beneficial to them. Lane states the Burger King property will be Norwood Pond Commission minutes June 7, 2000 meeting Page two impacted too. Douglas states that yes, that site will be impacted too but nE~in, the impact will be positive in that they will have greatly improved access to the property with the overpass. Lang asks what the $11-$12 million does cover. Kiililea answers that it includes the cost of constructing the overpass (bridge and roadway leading to and from it) and improvements to Brimbal Avenue. Lang asks what the status is of the risk assessment on the landfgl. Killilea responds that money has lr~cn included in the City's budget for the fiscal year 2001, but there is no set timetable for completion. Douglas reminds members that the commission has ~lready voted to recommend to the City that the former landfill site be used as an active recreation complex. Lang questions several of the figures in the report of the Economic and Community Development Council ('ECDC'), particularly that of the expected t~x revenue from additional development that might occur on Dunham Road as a result of the overpass project. He believes the revenue figures are too liberal and are based on erroneous info, umfion for the Cherry Hill Industrial Park. Douglas states that he has analyzed the ECDC's report and believes that the conclusions contnined in it are reliable. He also notes that the report did not include any _~dditional tax revenue that might be generated by additional development on the south side of Route 128, and the commission has already heard that there are in fact plans by some of those business owners to expand. Therefore, one could argue that the ECDC's t~x revenue estimates are actn~lly low. He adds that even ff the ECDC's estimate of $18,500 in tax revenue from each developed acre is a little high, that concern is offset by the probability that there is much more developable l~vld north of Route 128 than was assumed by the ECDC. McMnhon adds several comments as the chah,,,nn of the ECDC which authored the report. She clarifies the fact that the ECDC used the Chea,y Hill Industri_~! Park not as a baseline reference for tax revenue, but as a baseline for the rate of development of v_~__r~_ nt industrial parcels. She also adds that unless and until a f~fl! wetlands delineation study is done for every privately-owned parcel on that side of Route 128 and until ~1! of the costs of the infrastructure improvements are absolutes, the ECDC study represents the best reliable source of info~tL~afion on the subject of the economic impact of the overpass project. Norwood Pond Commission minutes June 7, 2000 meeting Page three Lang asks ff the 58 acres cited as developable excludes the areas known to be wetlands. McMahon states that all wetlands were eliminated from the equation as unbuildable. Lang asks if the property owned by the North Shore Music Theater was included in the study. McMahon answers no, it was not included. The ECDC wanted to be conservative in its assumptions, so it assumed that that property would not be developed industrially simply because it is now owned and used by a non-profit, non-indushlal user. There is nothing to prevent the land from being developed for industrial uses, and if it were it would only add to the tax l~evenue to the City. Douglas states that with respect.to the criticism of the tax revenue figure of $18,500 per acre, he knows first hand that some indusl~'ial sites generate $25,000 per acre in taxes. For ey~mple, the Connolly Brothers building on Conant Strcct produces $25,000 per acre annually in revenue. He believes the $18,500/acre assumption is a fair and reasonable estimate. Nardella suggests adding a clarifying sentence similar to the following: ~These figures were based on rough estimation of wetland areas, and until a wetlands delineation study is done of the area, they should be considered only to be estimates.' Members agree to make this change. Frost raises a concern that dredging of Norwood Pond should be included in the efforts of the feasibility study. He asks Killilea for an update on . the conditi°n of the dam at Norwood Pond. Killilea answers that some work has already been done, and that the City will shortly be inst_~lllng granite curbs and bacl~llin4~ the structure with graveL That work will be done as soon as the water in the area dries up Sl]l~iciently to ~llow the work to take place. Once that work is done, the primary question to answer is at what level should the water in the pond be rnairlt~irted. He states that the property owners along the pond must reach a consensus on this issue. Frost asks if the City is in a position to do anything about the growing beaver problem at the pond in the meantime. Killilea answers that the City's priority is to improve the dam. Douglas suggests th_at the neighbors abutting the pond should get together and hire a trapper to take care of the beaver issue. Lang states that he will not be part of a vote in favor of the overpass project. He states that the overpass will benefit only Maestranzi and a few other private property owners, and too much money is at stake. He does not see the economic benefit to the City and is not in favor of the Norwood Pond Commission minutes June 7, 2000 meeting Page four project. He is also sympathetic to the people who live on Brimbal Avenue. Douglas states that it would be a mistake to base a decision on supporting the overpass only on economic development and tax revenue. He states that there are many other benefits that would accrue from .the overpass project. He reminds the members that a lot of the recommendations contained in this final report and those recommendations already foa~,,ulated by the Norwood Pond Commission involve the use of public {City) funds. The study of Norwood Pond was done with a combination of state funds and $10,000 in City money. Funds for restoration of the pond and the construction of active and passive recreation facilities will also use some public funds, as has the repair of the dam. That level of inveshnent of public funds should be based on a corresponding public good, namely increased tax revenue and increased recreational opportunities. Lang states that the City might not get $5 million toward construction costs for the overpass and City funds may be used. Douglas answers that we know there is a $5 million funding commihuent from the State on the table, and we know there will be some level of private contributions from private property oWners to offset the project's costs. He agrees that the City should not bear all of the costs of this infrastructure project, and doesnt believe it will have to. Members elect to take individual votes on each of the proposed recommendations cont~/ned in the report (see copy of final report attached hereto and made a part of this record). Recommendation #1: Martin, Douglas, Cassidy, Lawler, McOlynn, McMahon, Nardella in favor, Lane and Frost opposed. The recommendation is adopted 7-2. Recommendation #2: Martin, Douglas, Cassidy, Lawler, McOlynn, McMahon, Nardella, Frost in favor, Lang opposed. Douglas asks Lang to explain why he is opposed to this recommendation. Lang answers that he does not feel comfortable explaining his rationale at this point. Following brief consideration, Lang asks that his vote on recommendation #2 be recorded in favor, and the recommendation is adopted unanimously. Norwood Pond Commission minutes June 7, 2000 meeting Page five Recommendation #3: All members are in favor, and the recommendation is adopted unanimously. Recommendation #4: All members are in favor, and the recommendation is adopted unanimously. Recommendation #5: All members are in favor, and the recommendation is adopted unanimously. Recommendation #6: Douglas, Cassidy, Lawler, McGlynn, McMahon, Nardella, Frost, Lang in favor, Martin opposed. Martin states that he is opposed to this recommendation because he is concerned that the addition of ball fields behind the North Beverly School will create traffic and parking problems in the abutting residential neighborhood. The recommendation is adopted 8-1. Recommendation # 7: All members are in favor, and the recommendation is adopted unanimously. Martin states that the report will be revised as discussed this evening and distributed to the appropriate entities. Lawler expresses concern that reports sometimes get %helved' and the recommendations in them do not get implemented. Lawler: motion to ask the Mayor to review the report and to let the committee know what his viewpoint is on the recom- mendations. Motion seconded by Cassidy. Martin, Douglas, Cassidy, Lawler, McGlynn, McMah°n, Nardella, Frost in favor, LanE against. Motion ca~-iles 8-1. Martin states that the commission's final report will be distributed to the Mayor, the City Council, the Master Plan Steering Committee, the Planning Board, the Parks and Recreation Commission, the Conservation Commission, the Open Space and Recreation Committee and the Economic and Community Development Council. A copy of the final report will also be placed on file in the Library and the City Clerk's office. Finally, Martin comments that he believes the commission's work has laid a good foundation for a valuable future City project, and that the commission has gone to great lengths to show sensitivity to the various Norwood Pond Commission minutes June 7, 2000 meeting Page six groups and individuals who have been involved with this process. He thanks the members for their service. Next, Frost shows a short video taken during a site visit to Hardy Pond in Waltham he conducted x~dth Para Kampersal of the Norwood Pond Association. The video shows contractors dredging Hardy Pond using the newest, most non-invasive dredging technique developed to date. Douglas asks if the method generated much noise. Frost answers that the noise level of the operation was not bad, there was some noise generated by the pumps they were using. Next, Vera Kolias from the City of Peabody Planning Department makes a short presentation to the committee. She shares the experiences of the City of Peabody in dredging two of their ponds (Crystal Pond and Elginwood Pond). In total the ponds have 20 acres of surface area and approximately 90,000 cubic yards - or 17 tons - of material must be removed from the bottom of the ponds. She states that having a proposal to reuse the excavated material is critical to a successful State permitting process. She adds that 'the City was required to have both a sediment reuse plan and a watershed management plan before the applicable state agencies would issue pe~ mits for the work. ,Douglas asks Kolias how the dredging projects will be funded. She states that they ~vill use some City funds and have applied for a federal grant as well (Chapter 319 funds under the Clean Water Act would provide a 60%/40% matching grant). Pcabody hopcs to start thcir projcct ncxt year. Douglas asks what the cost estimates are for this work. Kolias answers that Peabody has spent $30,000 for the feasibility study, $89.,000 in engineering fees, and expects to spend $1 million to do the dredging work. Frost adds that 100,000 cubic yards of material was removed from Hardy Pond in Waltham over an eight-month period. Killilea asks Kolias if the State is requiring that the wastewater from the dredging activities be treated. She answers that a Section 401 Water Quality Permit from the Depa,'~cment of Environmental Protect was in fact required. Martin thanks Kolias for her willingness to share Peabody's experience with the commission. ,~ca,., mat u. a.~r..~ ,.s,c memt-mrs if they have re,Sewed *'-- d~a.. minutes of ...... cammmmon's May.,, ~ 2000 meeting and,~...s if .................... j McMahon: motion to approve the minutes of the comrnission's May 3, ................. s, Ail members m ~ .... rnodon carries. There being ilo other business, Martin asks for a motion to adjourn this ~,~ . .',.. ,.se No~.ood Pond Commission. MeMahon: motion to adjourn, seconded by Cassidy. All members e ...... motion carries. The meeting is adjourned at 9:05 p.m.