Loading...
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