2001-03-22 with Parks Commissio CITY OF BEVERLY
PUBLIC MEETING MINUTES
BOARD OR COMMISSION:
SUBCOMMITTEE:
DATE:
LOCATION:
MEMBERS PRESENT:
MEMBERS ABSENT:
OTHERS PRESENT:
RECORDER:
Parks and Recreation Commission
and Open Space and Recreation
Committee
March 22, 2001
Beverly Public Library
Bruce Doig, Mark Casey, David
Gardner, Charlie Raymond, Tony
Paluzzi, Kathy Skrabut, Ellen
Flannery, Robert Buchsbaum
Guido Lauranzano, Kathy Tracy,
William Squibb, Cindy Modugno,
Richard Baker, Lauren Young,
Elizabeth Caputo, Patricia Adams,
Arthur Powell, Ivy Mahan, Kevin
Hobin
Tom Scully (Director of Community
Services), Joan Fairbank (Recreation
Director), Tina Cassidy (Planning
Director)
Tina Cassidy, Joan Fairbank, Tom
Scully
Gardner opens the meeting by explaining to those in attendance that the
purpose of this evening's joint meeting between the Parks and Recreation
Commission and the Open Space and Recreation Committee is to discuss
the future of the City-owned Norwood Pond site off Dodge Street.
Gardner states that the Norwood Pond Commission, in its final report,
recommended that the Parks and Recreation Commission and the Open
Space and Recreation Committee consider the future use of Norwood
Pond and make specific recommendations regarding those uses.
Gardner adds that since that report, the City has been approached by an
anonymous individual who is willing to donate a significant sum of
money to the City to preserve the property under certain conditions.
Until the City determines what uses it would like to see at Norwood
Pond, it cannot verify whether the conditions of the anonymous
individual would be acceptable. Therefore, this meeting was convened to
allow the two boards to discuss the site's future with the public and
develop a list of activities and uses.
Scully presents a short slide show that includes aerial photographs of
the site and the area surrounding the property.
Joint Parks and Recreation and Open Space meeting
March 22, 2001
Page two
A general discussion takes place on the concerns and issues related to
use of the site. Committee and commission members and staff cite the
following:
· Immediate need for more active playing fields that are regulation-size
facilities
· Protection of natural resources on the site, including vernal pools and
the pond itself
· Traffic and parking issues and means of access to the site
Exacerbation of existing flooding problems in the immediate
residential neighborhood
· Use of the pond (fishing, motorized or non-motorized watercraft)
· Use of the trails on the site (hiking, cross-country biking)
· Mnintnln the integrity of the parcel's value as open space
· Necessity of providing restroom facilities
· Maintenance of the property and any facilities on site
· Necessity of complying with the requirements of the Americans with
Disabilities Act
· On-going problem with illegal hunting
· Other general, neighborhood-related issues (i.e. noise, lighting, type of
recreational space needed for the neighborhood)
Following this discussion, Gardner suggests that the committees attempt
to list what the City's goals should be for the property. The discussion
resulted in the goals listed below:
Make the Norwood Pond site accessible to all residents of the City
· Promote the property as a unique facility in the community
· Create a trail network
· Create both active and passive recreation opportunities
· Protect the natural resources present on the site
· Protect the neighborhood from adverse Impacts
· Use the property as an opportunity for environmental education and
community volunteer projects
Next, Gardner suggests that members of the public who are in
attendance be given the opportunity to voice their concerns and
suggestions. Public comment includes the following:
Joint Parks & Recreation, Open Space meeting
March 22, 2001
Page Three
· Make sure the public and the decision makers understand the
difference between playing fields and athletic fields, and the
implications of building either one
· Consider whether a playground/jungle gym facility should be created
in this location
· Site improvements should be designed to minimize disturbance to the
site
· build regulation size fields
· Fields should be informal {e.g. not regulation-sized)
· Consider providing bathroom facilities on the site for the benefit of the
site's users
· Use this general area (Norwood Pond, N. Beverly School, water tower
property) to create active recreation facilities
· Provide a buffer between uses on the property and the abutting
residences to minimize flooding, noise, and visual impacts
· Create soccer fields on the dump
· Reverse the eutrophication of the pond
· Improve the tails criss-crossing the property for hiking and nature
walks
· Allow only non-motorized uses on the site, whether watercraft or bikes
· Address the issue of managing and maintaining the site
· Protect the integrity of the ecosystem
· Consider cross-country ski trails
At the end of the public input segment, members of the two committees
break into two workgroups to develop a list of suggested improvements
and uses for the Norwood Pond site and several other pieces of publicly-
owned land adjacent to it. The recommendations of both the Parks and
Recreation Commission and the Open Space and Recreation Committee
are:
MAKE THE SITE ACCESSIBLE TO ALL
· Primary access through North Beverly School
· Develop additional public access/parking
· Ensure the site and all improvements are ADA accessible
PROMOTE ENJOYMENT OF PASSIVE RECREATION
· Trail network (for foot traffic only)
· Ban motorized vehicles / water craft
· Boat aceess to pond
Joint Parks, Recreation & Open Space meeting
March 22, 2001
Page four
· Picnic areas
· Promote scenic vistas
PROMOTE ACTIVE AND PASSIVE RECREATION
· Non-lighted athletic fields in close proximity to school
· Enrichment programs
· Hiking
· Nature education
· Playground progrms
· Investigate feasibility of playing fields on top of old reservoirs
PROTECT/CAPITALIZE ON NATURAL ENVIRONMENT
· Maintain natural character of the area
· Athletic field not to exceed 2 to 3 acres and to be located
proximate to school
· Promote activity away from most sensitive habitats
· Activities should be consistent with protecting the natural
environment
PROTECT NEIGHBORHOODS
· Visual buffer zones
· Consider impact of field design on drainage and flooding
· Encourage parking at school
NATURE EDUCATION
· Nature walks
· Encourage school programs
MANAGEMENT PLAN