1998-10-07Don Martin, Chairnmn
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
Minutes
October 7, 1998 Meeting
Members present:
Chairman Don Martin, Todd Lampert, Tina Cassidy, J. Michael
Lawler, Joyce McMahon, Virginia McGlynrt, Brace Nardella,
Neiland Douglas, Bill Frost, David Lang. Also present: City
Engineer Frank Killilea.
Chairman Martin opens the meeting at 7:30 p.m. and reads the agenda for this evening's
meeting for the benefit of the audience. He asks if any members of the public have
comments they would like to make.
Ron Johnsen, a resident of Brimhal Avenue, expresses his hope that any active recreation uses that might
be inu'oduced onto the Norwood Pond site would not be an expensive project such as a large sports
complex. He also states that he believes a road to the site would ruin the environmental nature of the area
as it presently exists. Martin reads a letter received from Ms. Mary Rodrick dated October 9, 1998 (see
file). Martin asks if there are any other members of the public who wish to speak at this point. There are
none.
Martin asks if members have read the draft minutes of the August 5, 1998 and September
9, 1998 meetings and whether there are any changes that should be made to them.
MeMahon: motion to approve the August 5, 1998 meeting minutes as drafted,
seconded by Lawler. All members in favor, motion carries.
Next, Frost expresses concern about comments made at the end of the August meeting
by State Rep. Michael Cahill relative to the availability of funding for the overpass
project and design and on postponing any decisions on uses at Norwood Pond until the
Master Plan process is completed. Since Rep. Cahill is not present at this point in the
meeting, Douglas informs members that he spoke with Cahill following the meeting
because he had the same concerns expressed by Frost. Douglas states that Cahill
regretted leaving the members with the implication that he was suggesting that no action
be taken by this commission. His intent was to remind members that another land use
planning process is underway, and that he is committed to open space preservation. He
did not expect the commission's recommendations to be shelved once formulated, but
rather that the recommendations would be acted on by the appropriate office holders and
commissions.
Norwood Pond Commission
October 7, 1998 meeting minutes
Page two
Lawler states his opinion that there is a significant risk on the financial end, in that the
money to construct this project may not materialize. Douglas reminds him that $500,000
is available for the study, and that Rep. Cahill stated during their conversation that he did
not mean to imply that the study money was at risk.
Martin asks members if they have reviewed the draft minutes of the September 9, 1998
meeting, and if there are any corrections needed.
MeMah on: motion to approve the minutes of the September 9, 1998 meeting as
drafted, seconded by Lawler. All members in favor, motion carries.
Next, Martin asks McMahon to update members on the efforts of the Economic and
Community Development Council (ECDC) to prepare an economic impact analysis of an
overpass at Norwood Pond. McMahon states that the members of the ECDC had a
fruitful discussion on the subject at their last meeting, but had several questions to pose to
this commission to insure that the analysis that is conducted is exactly what the Norwood
Pond Commission needs. First, there are several ways that the analysis can be conducted;
with respect to future building capacity, the ECDC can use the build-out figures that will
be compiled by the consulting firm of HTSD as part of their traffic study, or the ECDC
can work with the firm to cooperatively agree on a build-out figure. A third alternative
would be for the ECDC to compile its own numbers with no involvement with or
comparison to those generated by HTSD. The consensus of the Norwood Pond
Commission is that the ECDC should work cooperatively with the consulting firm to
make sure that the build-out numbers agree and are based on the same assumptions.
Secondly, McMahon points out that the economic analysis should include a revenue
analysis of the lots in the future. The size of the building and uses permitted by zoning
will be included, with assessment values assigned depending on the use. From that
information, future tax revenue can be determined.
Lang states that he agrees with the notion of working with the consultant, and asks that
any development phns that are now on the table be factored into the figures, including
any plans that may be on file with the local boards. Lawler asks that the study include an
estimated total employee base for the businesses on Dunham Road so that the traffic
impact analysis will be as accurate as possible.
Douglas expresses his agreement with the collaborative approach, and Lang states that a
"no-build" scenario for traffic generation is important. Douglas notes that the consultant
talked about a six-month study period for this effort, and wonders if that time line could
be accelerated. Killilea states that it could be, but that the consultant chose a timetable
Norwood Pond Commission
October 7, 1998 meeting minutes
Page three
that permitted ample public input. McMahon states that the ECDC agreed to meet more
frequently to accomplish this task. Nardella asks Cassidy if the consultant has started
taking traffic counts yet; Cassidy answers that they have not, but that they will be starting
very shortly.
Next, Martin asks members if they would list the types of active recreational uses they
would like to consider at Norwood Pond. Lang states that he would like to finally decide
whether there is any possibility of constructing soccer fields on the former landfill. He
understands that the Town of Tops~eld is designing a plan for soccer fields as part of that
town's landfill capping plan. While there may be severe restrictions and perhaps not
enough time under the City's consent decree, it is certainly worth asking the State and the
City's consultants whether soccer fields are a possibility. He states that in terms of the
Norwood Pond campus, the most likely location for active recreation is behind the North
Beverly School, where he would like to see two large soccer fields constructed with
hackstops to accommodate girls' softhall.
McGlynn agrees with Lang that the City should pursue the possibility of constructing
soccer fields on the old landfill, and asks how binding the August vote of the commission
is. Killilea states that the City is required to submit a plan to the Department of
Environmental Protection by October 15th, and cannot miss that deadline. Killilea states
that outside parties have expressed an interest in paying the City to accept fill Douglas
asks how much money that might mean to the city. Killilea has asked for the numbers
but has not received the information as yet. Additionally, not all of the material is clean
and it will be necessary to ascertain the exact nature of all the material prior to seriously
considering whether the City should accept it. Lang states that the party has
approximately 200,000 cubic yards of material.
Back on the subject of recreational uses around the pond, MeGlynn advocates that the
area around the pond be left in as natural a state as it can he. Front expresses his desire to
salvage the pond and to leave the land area around the pond in its natural state.
Nardella asks Lang how large the Topsfield land fill is; Lang answers approximately 25
acres. Nardella asks Killilea whether the City would save any money off the total cost of
the landfill closure if they pursued an arrangement to accept dirt from the private
company. Killilea states that it could save money on the cost of closure. Nardella states
that he was left with the impression during earlier discussions on the matter with the
consultant that they were discouraging pursuit of active recreation because it would
require an active gas collection system which would he cost prohibitive. If there is a
possibility of reducing the overall landfill capping costs, there may in fact he money
available to install the appropriate collection system for active recreation. If that were the
case, he would echo previous sentiments to aggressively pursue the active recreation
option.
Norwood Pond Commission
October 7, 1998 meeting minutes
Page four
McMahon notes that Lang has expressed reservations in the past about some of the cost
estimates quoted by the consulting firm. Lang states that there is a possibility that a risk
assessment would need to be conducted if active recreation options were pursued, and
that possibility is also a concern to him.
Killilea states that he will check with the consultants and with DEP. Previously, the
consultant and City had been told by DEP that construction of playing fields on former
landfills was discouraged by that agency. He will ask if there have been any more recent
discussions on the subject and whether the DEP has changed its policy position on the
matter.
Nardella states that his goals for the campus would be to encourage passive recreational
uses around the pond, and to preserve the area around the ponds as it presently exists. He
would like to see at least two ball fields constructed, one for soccer and one for softhall.
He would prefer to see those fields if there was an overpass to provide adequate access
for such facilities. He believes that the City's current elementary school building plan
will double the size of the population of the North Beverly school to 525-550 students,
and wonders if the school addition will further justify the need for an overpass.
McMahon cites preservation of land around the pond for passive recreatiort, with
improved trails, canoeing and non-motorized boating for recreational fishing if the pond
can be cleaned. She suggests that at least two playing fields are needed and states that the
popularity of lacrosse is increasing. She suggests that it would be appropriate to seek the
input of the City' s Recreation Commission on what types of fields are needed most in the
City. She also points out that the existing residential neighborhoods need to be taken into
consideration, since at the moment the only place people could park is on the residential
side streets.
Lawler agrees with the comments of his fellow commission members, and highlights the
need to preserve and protect open space. He reiterates the need for suitable playing ...
fields, and believes the most appropriate area to consider for active recreation is directly
behind the school He thinks it is appropriate to set aside 5 or 6 acres out of the 100 or so
acres that comprise the Norwood Pond campus for active recreation.
Lampert states that the City needs more athletic fields. While he doesn't disagree with
open space preservation, he considers fields to be a form of open space. He says there is
a specific need for one or two more soccer fields, a full-sized football field, girls' softhall
diamond(s), and a hockey rink. He notes that lacrosse is the fastest growing sport in the
City, and that foothall and lacrosse can share fields. He suggests that six or seven acres
would be needed. He cautions that fields directly behind the school might be somewhat
Norwood Pond Commission
October 7, 1998 meeting minutes
Page five
isolated and secluded, and finally recommends that any active recreation proposal not
include spectator stands.
Douglas notes that the Commission is focusing on many different needs. Active
recreation, passive recreation, infrastructure improvements and open space are among the
needs on the list. He agrees that the Commission should investigate any way to reduce
the landfill capping costs if it would mean the City could afford to build fields on the
landfill. He believes more than one field is needed, but that the bulk of the acreage
should be left as it is, perhaps with minimal improvements for trails. He also wants to
preserve and protect the pond.
Cassidy states that she spoke with fellow member Kevin Burke before the meeting.
While he could not attend tonight's commission meeting due to an unavoidable conflict,
he asked that members be informed of the fact that the previous city engineer had drafted
a plan to put soccer fields behind the school. Those plans may still be in the engineer' s
office, and may be worthwhile reviewing during the commission's discussions. Both
Burke and Cassidy agreed that the Recreation Commission should be invited to a future
Norwood Pond Commission meeting to gather that group's input on what types of active
recreation facilities are needed in the City.
Martin outlines his goals for the campus, which include picnic areas and hiking trails. He
also feels that the existing residential neighborhoods must be buffered ~'om any ball
fields that are constructed. Personally, he would not support the construction of ball
fields without an overpass, since the only other mea__ns of access would be via residential
side streets.
McMahon suggests that there will also need to be a buffer between active and passive
recreation areas on this site. She adds that a small portion of the Norwood Pond campus
is zoned for industrial, and if the industrially-zoned area were suitable for development it
might generate the money necessary to build the fields and trails, etc. the City is
considering. She would support development on the industrially-zoned land if it could
be done in an ecologically-safe fashion. Fields might become a lower priority of the
commission without additional development, particularly if the overpass doesn't generate
additional tax revenue.
Nardella notes that better access to the school and more recreational fields will be part of
the equation when determining the value of an overpass to the community. Douglas
states that current conditions on Dunham Road negatively impact the cultural and arts
center, that traffic is choking the residential neighborhood and thereby lowering property
values.
Norwood Pond Commission
October 7, 1998 meeting minutes
Page six
Lang does not agree that the North Shore Music Theater is suffering as a result of the
traffic situation. Lawler disagrees with the position that there should be no fields unless
there's an overpass.
McGlynn ash Killilea when the overpass consultants will be back before the
Commission. Killilea answers probably once the preliminary traffic counts are
completed, and before the end of the calendar year.
Martin asks if there is any other public comment this evening. Jim Alberghini,
representing the North Shore Music Theater, says he believes it is important to respond to
Mr. Lang' s comment about the theater. The theater in fact has no serious winter
performance schedule due in part to the fact that Dunham Road is dangerous and nearly
impassible during snowstom. An overpass would alleviate that situation and improve
safety immeasurably.
Ron Johnsen states that if the City takes this $5 million for an overpass it might not get
money for other things, and that this area should not be viewed as a "cure-alF' for the
field needs of the entire City.
City Councilor Tim Flaherty expresses his support for soccer fields at the land fill and the
notion of involving the Recreation Commission in this commission's deliberations.
Elise Bernstein notes that the high school practice field is substandard and in need of
maintenance. She has a vision of the overpass road threatening wetlands, and suggests
that the commission consider a maximum of two fields.
Renee Mary asks Killilea if he knows what is being constructed behind the Burger King
Restaurant. Killilea answers that he has been unable to find out who is responsible for
the activity to which she is referring, but will continue to seek an answer.
Martin states that the next meeting of the Norwood Pond Commission will be held on
November 4, 1998 beginning at 7:00 p.m.
McMahon:
motion to adjourn, seconded by Lawler. All members in favor, motion
carries.
The meeting is adjourned at 9:00 p.m.