Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2022-02-16 Community Preservation Committee Minutes Community Preservation Committee Minutes of February 16, 2022 Present: Chairman Brian Roache, Terrance Holland, Tracy Watson, Rick Green, John Simons, William Callahan,Tim Tschirhart, CJ Gangi, Daniel Beckley (Staff Planner) Absent -John Mabon, Chairman Brian Roache called the meeting to order at 7:05PM. The in person and remote meeting was broadcast on North Andover CAM. Mr. Roache read a statement before the meeting started (referencing the opening statement off the Agenda) "Pursuant to Governor Baker's March 12, 2021 Order Suspending Certain Provisions of the Open Meeting Law, G.L.c 30A, Section 18 and Governor's March 15, 2020 Order imposing strict limitation on the number of people that may gather in one place, this meeting of the North Andover Community Preservation Committee will conducted via remote participation to the greatest extent possible". EXECUTIVE SESSION Chair Roache stated the Committee will move to Executive session. MOTION: T. Watson motioned to go into executive session pursuant to Massachusetts General Laws, Chapter 30A, Section 21(a)(6) to consider the purchase, exchange, lease or value of real property located at 400 Great Pond Road. Motion seconded by R. Green. Motion approved 8-0. The Committee returned to Open Session at 7:28pm. PUBLIC HEARING —Chairman Roache read the remote meeting statement— Pursuant to Chapter 20 of the acts of 2021 the Public Hearing will be conducted via in person and via remote means... 400 Great Pond Road -Town's application for the proposed acquisition of 400 Great Pond Road. Laura Bates and Suzanne Egan were present to answer questions. Discussion took place explaining that the main purpose to purchase the property is to preserve the land and protect the watershed. It is an historic building registered with the Historical Society. There is no deed restriction on the property. J. Simons asked if the main purpose is water supply maintenance and not watershed protection. Based on where the property is and the existing conservation restriction on the property, there can be no further building on the property beyond what it is today and the lakefront is well protected. Purchasing the property would not make any changes to the protection of the water supply. Is the main purpose to purchase the property the flexibility and capability to move up the water level? Suzanne Egan —one of the primary reasons is to protect the water supply and increase the lake level. Using the current building as a possible boathouse was discussed. Board members are concerned about using it as a boathouse which would potentially increase the boats on the lake. It is a competing interest. J. Simons suggested speaking with the harbormaster for his thoughts. CPC would like additional information and would like to know Mr. Boynton's opinion. What are the liabilities and ramifications of allowing the water to raise now? Suzanne Egan feels this is a legal question and is best not discussed in open session. North Andover Housing Authority and Affordable Housing Trust— Laurie Burzlaff and Maggie Cleary discussed the application. $100,000 for design and feasibility study for Fountain Drive. Laurie Burzlaff described the project. Currently seeking funds for design study. B. Callahan questioned the capital study done a few years ago and the existing unit's renovations. Maggie believes the current buildings are not at the end of their use. T. Watson explained the Fountain Drive buildings are well maintained and this proposal would be a separate project. T. Watson explained that this would be in addition to the capital plan. The consultant would be tasked with finding the additional funding. B. Roache asked for cost estimate for the design contract. Maggie will provide a written quote. Lake Cochichewick Boat Ramp— Mr. Kelly presented the proposal. T. Tschirhart asked the purpose of the boat ramp. Mr. Kelly explained that the current boat launch is a hazard. He is looking to simply make a safe way to get access to the lake for residents with permits. Permitting is complicated. J. Simons suggested speaking to the harbormaster. It is unclear if trailers will be allowed to use the boat ramp. Mr. Kelly explained that they are not looking to change any of the rules currently in place. Looking to prevent any non-permitted use. J. Simons discussed the problem of erosion on that side of the lake. Suggested speaking to DPW. Mr. Kelly is working with John Borgesi on the project. J. Simons believes that the proposed dollar amount being requested is quite high. In working with the Town, Mr. Kelly received the necessary estimates that will be required. Because it is the water supply, additional permitting is necessary. R. Green questioned the width. Mr. Kelly explained 15', and would need to construct steps or ballers to prevent boats backing down and suggested posting the rules of lake use at the ramp. Weir Hill fencing— presented by Jean Enright and Jeremy Dick of the Trustees of the Reservation. Jean explained the purpose of the fencing is to keep people on the delineated trails in the watershed and Weir Hill. 800' of fencing is proposed, but only 100' is on Trustees land. A small section is being eliminated, proposing to put plantings in that area. Jeremy expressed the success of the current split rail fencing. B. Roache questioned if the existing fence keeps pets away. Jean Enright suggested that people see the delineated area and the hope is that they will keep their pets on the trail. In moving trails away from the water, is it eliminating some of the views of the water along the trails? They are working on finding a good balance between trails and views. B. Roache questioned any studies done in regard to where the shoreline would be if the lake were to be raised a foot? There is currently no information on raising the water level. Mazurenko Boardwalk Improvements— Presented by Glen Aspeslagh of FONAT. Glen stated that the Locus and Scout trails are severely eroded and wet. The proposal is to build 800' of bog bridging to get people out of the mud and prevent further erosion. They are looking to continue the bridge currently there. T Tschirhart confirmed that they will work with Conservation on the project. Yes. Lifespan of the bridge is approximately 10-15 years. Ousler Property—Two Bridges proposed. Dan will check with Steve Nugent's availability for the next meeting. Glen from FONAT is proposing only the bridges. Motion made by R. Green to adjourn, seconded by T. Watson. Motion approved 8-0.