===PAGE 1=== Town of Lunenburg Park Commission Karin Menard, Chair 978.582.4160 Chris Sullivan, Vice Chair 520 Chase Road Ana Lockwood, Member Lunenburg, MA 01462 Dave Passios, Member TOWN OF LUNENBURG PARK COMMISSION MINUTES Thursday January 20, 2022 MINUTES 1. Open Meeting K Menard opened the meeting via zoom at 7:00pm. Present: Karin Menard, Chris Sullivan, Dave Passios, Ana Lockwood. Also in attendance, Rob Thompson Recreation Director 2. Public and Board Comment-D Passios made the statement that with the review that he has done on the two proposals to be presented that evening, he feels that neither one of them represents his vision of what they have said they want for this project and what the public has expressed their concerns over, he intends to move that they pass over that agenda item. He believes it’s not ready for public review. C Sullivan stated that the hockey nets and benches are back down on Marshall Pond. 3. Approval of Minutes: 7/14/21, 7/28/21, 8/25/21, 9/27/21, 10/27/21, 12/2/21, 12/20/21. 1/4/22 A Lockwood mentioned that the 1/4/22 (actually date 1/6/22) minutes need to be edited before approved, D Passios agreed as he had some concerns with them. Motion by C Sullivan, seconded by A Lockwood to accept the listed minutes submitted excluding 1/4/22(1/6/22) Roll call, C Sullivan- Aye, A Lockwood-AYE, D Passios-Aye, K Menard- Aye. 4. 7:15 WOLA-2 preliminary design presentations, discussion and feedback by commission for Marshall Park- D Passios proposed a motion to be voted on that the two proposals that were distributed to the board for review previous to the meeting do not get disseminated in the meeting pending further review and discussion by the board and their architects and engineers in a public setting. K Menard stated that the meeting was there for public discussion. D Passios moved that the designs not be released that evening. K Menard stated that the designs are already out there for the public. A resident mentioned that they are public documents. K Menard mentioned that the meeting was for WOLA to be gather information from the meeting’s discussion about the project. Discussion followed on going ahead with WOLA and discuss what is liked and what is not of the two designs. D Passios withdrew his motion K Menard gave the link for the viewers at home of a google folder with the preliminary designs and stressed they are preliminary and that WOLA is there to get feedback from the commission so they can make adjustments as needed. Two Concept designs (Option 1 & Option 2) were screen shared by K Ostermier. She went through both Options describing the overall concept. Option 1-Entering from Rt 2A drive straight into the park. 100 Parking spaces, central to what they are calling the heart of the park. There is a turnaround that is sufficient for a fire truck to safely turn around and exit. In the ===PAGE 2=== heart of the park is the skate park, pickelball courts, a larger lawn, a playground, restroom facilities , snack stand and picnic area. The little league/softball field was left where it was, adjusted the t-ball field. There is a small and large loop for dog walking/walking which could continue and connect with a path to the pond for an overlook. There is parking by the 90 foot diamond taking pressure off of the street parking. The low lying areas are for storm water collection and drainage. They would reuse the existing paved courts as a dog park. They still have to locate a fitness track. They wanted to keep this all in the central portion of the park, have younger kids at the playground while the others are in school and also have times when the seniors can use the pickelball courts, etc. Aesthetically, from the survey, people tended to prefer the rustic approach. A Lockwood asked if the 90 foot baseball diamond is in the same location or a different one to which K Ostermier answered that it would be reoriented. It could be used for a softball field. Alternative 2- It would be using shared outfields, the sum of both is greater than the two separate fields. The 90 foot baseball diamond has been realigned and reconfigured. The entrance is off 2A with similar parking with a larger parking area to right, enter into one large parking lot with a turnaround at the end. There is the skatepark with benches around it for people to sit, on the other side of the pathway is the playground and the memorial lawn. The existing memorials would be moved and set next to the benches themselves. Then a smaller lawn with an overhead structure that connects the snack shack and the restrooms. There is an active zone with the pickelball court and basketball court. There are U shaped benches for the courts. Some grading needs to be done at the existing little league field and they thought it would be interesting to inset granite benches into the hillside. The path splits off to a proposed overlook of the pond and include the dog park and picnic benches. By combining the outfields of the diamond and the softball field it gives an area for other types of field play. There’s another parking area set off Chestnut St and a cinder track/asphalt track that continues all around the park for walking. There’s 110 parking spots. They had some ideas for signage for the park. K Ostermier opened the meeting up for questions and comments. Nick Betts from Meridian Associates stated he was available to answer any of the civil questions, A Lockwood asked if he could speak on that. He went on to state that the soils at the park are difficult because of a high ledge and a shallow cover of soil. He mentioned that with the parking, from a civil perspective, you have to meet stormwater regulations with the conservation commission. Parking should be kept away from wetlands while still using the existing entrance drive. The project can be classified as a redevelopment which has less strict standards than an all new development. Locating the building adjacent to the parking allows for easier access for maintenance vehicles and deliveries. If the septic system design located at the end of the road is pursued it’s still within reach of the approved leachfield. It gives flexibility to either have the septic pumped or to connect to the town sewer in the future. The paths would run parallel with the grade in order to minimize the amount of grading that’s need to meet the ADA requirements. K Menard asked in Option #2 the grade seems to be multi-level grades and thinks the 90-foot diamond is lower than the current softball field and how would they level it. N Betts answered that it will never be a dead flat field but with grading and spreading they could get a field perceived as flat and drainage would be taken in account. C Sullivan stated that Option 2 is closer but still has concerns. One tricky things is the school use and the overlap of games at the softball and 90-foot diamond fields. He likes the use of the unutilized areas and wants a discussion on the loss of the t-ball field. He likes the idea of the dog park. He appreciated the addressing of the fire engine being able to turn out and exit. He liked the memorial park, the overhang, small playground ideas and thinks pickelball and the basketball court are important. He likes the parking plans. He questioned the orientation of the two ball fields coming together and parking access. He liked the walking areas. A Lockwood spoke about the overlap of the baseball games and how they worked. She liked the combined outfields and possibly have a soccer league in the fall. Liked the dog park being a small area fenced in but would like people to be able to walk their dogs on designated walkways so they are not running on the playing fields. She didn’t think a basketball court was needed since they are elsewhere in other parks and maybe keep the t-ball field. She liked the parking and that it is on the side of the park. She suggested to not putting parking on Chestnut because of the on street parking there and thinks they should have a live drop-off area for buses. ===PAGE 3=== She also asked about the pavilion. K Ostermier showed one that could be made larger. A Lockwood mentioned that another park has a pavilion plan and do we need one here or more open space. She prefers open space for other activities other than organized sports. C Sullivan added that he feels the basket court should stay because the other courts are on the other side of town. Also that plowing should be taken into consideration should the park be open year round in the future. He thought the pavilion should stay for shelter for summer programming. And believes there is value in parking on the Chestnut St side to keep cars off the street if needed. K Menard mentioned that Marshall Park is not closed for the winter but they don’t do any organized activities. She also likes Option #2 and agrees with C Sullivan about the basketball court and have it double as other activities. She’s not sold on the dog park but not sure what else could go there because of the location. She likes the layout of the fields to allow other sports there. She thinks the t-ball could move to another park. She thinks having some kind of covered pavilion area is important for the summer programming along with the bathrooms. She asked if the skatepark was moved in the design. K Ostermier spoke on the skatepark and that Option 1 was the same but in Option 2 it got adjusted to get it close to where it was supposed to be and it would fit into the core of the park. And made sure it was visible from 2A. K Menard acknowledged that it’s important to be visual from other angles. She added that the sharing of the outfields and how big the overlap is. C Sullivan questioned the grading and that they will have to be perfectly flat. K Ostermier is working on that. K Menard mentioned that the parking on Chestnut and having Handicap spaces is important. K Menard likes Options 2 over Option 1. She asked what the next step in the process is. K Ostermier stated they will take the feedback from the night and per contract will be presenting two options (with the adjustments from feedback) to the commission and the public in two to three weeks with some cost estimates for each option. They will meet with the Town Administrator to review them and the commission will decide on which option is preferred and get any adjustments to the preferred. D Passios asked N Betts in either one of these configurations it looks like the design is backed up against the wetland buffers where the septic design is proposed so it would have to be adjusted to allow that field to go in there? N Betts explained where the septic was located up by the 90-foot diamond and is far outside the wetland buffers, that both designs could accommodate the septic system. D Passios feels that the parking on Chestnut St would not be resolved with the proposed lots, and added that the home plate of the 90-foot diamond is there. D Passios believes that the entire plan has a wholesale disregard for historical aspects of the park and that the stone walls around the park are protected by bylaws in town and can’t be bulldozed. He showed concern that the RFP for this project was for 28 acres of land and the design only covers 20 acres, and disregards the forest area and the pond. K Ostermier mentioned the pathways that go to the pond with an overlook and seating area, and wanted more feedback on that. D Passios thinks the designs cram too much into the southern end of the park and both of the plans do what the commission said they weren’t going to do, a wholesale bulldozing of the fields even if being replaced which he isn’t opposed to because they need grading. C Sullivan asked about the process of the next steps, K Ostermier detailed them again and elaborated. He also mentioned that from a commission standpoint there is a preference on design 2 so would they rework both designs or just design 2. K Ostermier answered that they could take Design 2 if the commissions wants, they will come back with two options taken just from Design 2. A Lockwood asked if the skatepark doesn’t happen if that area could be redesigned, K Ostermier said it could. A Lockwood also would like the commission to sit with the design and elaborate on any other feedback and then invite the public to watch the meeting and have a survey of what they liked and didn’t like. C Sullivan stated that public comments are important and wanted to hear them tonight. A Lockwood added that public feedback should come before a cost estimate is presented. K Menard opened up the meeting for public feedback. ===PAGE 4=== Anthony Caiozzo addressed the location of the skatepark shifting and the parking on Chestnut and the proposal not working well. Chris Begley stated that outfields can’t be shared for logistical reasons and that the grading to get the field flat can’t work. He had concerns about the t-ball field not staying there. K Menard answered that they are eyeballing Fitzgerald for t-ball. C Begley thinks that the fields at Fitzgerald are being used five days a week as instructional fields. C Sullivan mentioned that Fitzgerald might be a good spot. A Lockwood stated that the shared field is done in other towns. C Begley questioned Option 1’s little league and softball scheduling conflicts and that one would have to be omitted. C Sullivan stated he would not support Option 1 if that was the case and that the commission is not favoring the omission of losing a baseball field. K Menard mentioned that the school mostly uses the 90-foot diamond and that it’s an option of the School to put in their own for their program. Also she’s not leaning toward Option 1 and they are not looking to take out fields from Little League. D Passios thought that a multi-use single area for baseball and softball can’t be made because they’re totally different designs with the infields and baselines. C Begley wanted to know if the batting cages would be gone. K Ostermier answered that they will be in the final design. C Begley stated that the existing snack shack is run by the Little League and asked if that option is gone from the designs. K Ostermier answered that they had planned to consolidate the snack shack in one central place so there would be electricity and plumbing, shared with restrooms, but could add an additional shack if the town is interested. There was discussion on meeting guidelines for the MMIA regarding the 90-foot diamond. RJ Thibeault of 19 Whitetail Crossing asked about the timeline and logistics and how it affects the softball fields currently. K Menard stated they don’t have a timeline yet and would minimize the impact on any activities but imagines it happening in the fall. He also mentioned the number of teams using the fields and believes shared fields are a good idea as well as the snack shack and restrooms. He questioned who would be maintaining the fields, K Menard answered it would fall under the DPW. He also questioned the snack shack staffing. He asked about losing seasons of sport for construction and K Menard and A Lockwood answered that it’s too early to tell. Greg Roy of 105 Chestnut St. mentioned that he is available to share information regarding the septic design and his involvement. He is excited about the upgrading of the park and talked about the parking on Chestnut St. and his concerns about a parking lot and street parking. He also mentioned the shared fields and foul balls impacting parking areas and abutters. Amy King of 3 Gabe’s Place echoed the statements about the loss of a softball field and the overlap in summer softball. She is also about the addition of another field at Fitzgerald and the parking on Reservoir as well as other locations during games. Asked if a t-ball field could be squeezed into the dog park area. Corrine stated she liked the baseball set up on the first plan better because it has more open space and maybe the school could put in the own fields. She likes the basketball court and possibly make it a combo court. She asked if there was a reason that the plan is not connecting to the town sewer. K Menard answered that the BOH has money available for the rehab of the septic so they’d like to utilize that but they went through the option of getting put into the sewer district. Asked if there were going to be sidewalks on the side of parking areas, K Ostermier answered that would be adjustment she’ll make. Corrine liked the idea of a small parking lot on Chestnut St side and thinks the town should not allow parking on Chestnut. C Sullivan and K Menard asked if WOLA needs a decision tonight. K Ostermier stated they will come up with 2 options from design 2, be in communication with the commission and present them to the town in a few weeks and it was not the end of the process. A Lockwood wanted to get more feedback to WOLA. 5. DPW/Town Manager/Recreation Director Updates R Thompson stated that there was progress on the Munis administrative work and that the beach will open on time and water testing will be done. He hopes to have the Munis functional by February. K Menard asked him to try to have a revolving account discussed with Karen ===PAGE 5=== Brochu. She also asked when he would open up for beach positions, he answered March 22nd. She also asked about an update on the beach house. He did not at this time but spoke of a possible leak in the roof. 6. FY23 Budget Priorities to submit to state legislatures K Menard read a request from the Town Manager to see if the commission has any items to submit to the legislative delegation for consideration for funding. Projects would have to be by FY23 and have a money figure with them. She commented that only one would be the Marshall Park survey is currently #14 on the Capital Plan and mentioned that it would most likely happen this year but would still like to submit it. A Lockwood questioned the building of rectangular fields on Northfield. K Menard answered that there are no plans that nothing was in motion. A Lockwood asked if they could request a master plan for the future of other properties especially Northfield. D Passios added that it never hurts to apply for funding for projects. He added that the bathroom building at Marshall Park will cost around $100,000-150,000 and would like to put in a request for the restroom facility improvements which could be completed in FY23. C Sullivan added that there is a need for space in town and agreed with A Lockwood on requesting a master plan. He agreed with D Passios about the restroom facilities at Marshall Park. Discussion followed on the master plan being part of the construction cost. K Menard listed the three potential funding projects, Marshall Park is $25, 000, Northfield Park $50- 75,000, and the restroom facility improvements $100-150,000. D Passios’ feeling with Northfield Park is that during the purchasing process and since that it was inventory to land that the commission could do something with. He thinks Fitzgerald is the next property to do improvements to and thinks a plan should be considered. C Sullivan agreed with that. K Menard mentioned that Fitzgerald is under care and control of the CONCOM, and that would need to be sorted before asking for any funding. She believes that it would be stressing the system to have two master plans at the same time and would like to wait until the end of the Marshall Park project. Discussion followed on the timeline of potential projects and the accuracy of increases of prices in future years if funded was given for Fitzgerald. Discussion followed on potential funding from other agencies. Motion made by C Sullivan to pass along to Town Manager to our Legislative Delegation for the restroom facility improvement -$150.000, the Northfield Park Master Plan and Survey-$75,000, and the Marshall Park Survey-$25,000 D Passios seconded. Roll Call C Sullivan-Aye, A Lockwood- Aye, D Passios-Aye, K Menard- Aye. D Passios would like this to submit for ARPA funding and be put on their list of pending projects. 7. America Rescue Plan Act (ARPA) discussion- K Menard spoke with the Town Manager about the town hiring a consultant that will give a presentation on February 1st at the Select Board meeting. Marshall Park is on the list to be funded and the prior list will be mentioned. D Passios asked K Menard to have a conversation about Fitzgerald with the CONCOM. 8. Skate park construction approval process, requirements, criteria and general discussion K Menard stated that she had information on her meeting with the group. Because it is a private project the group would be able to avoid the prevailing wage and Atty Costa didn’t think that it would apply. He stated that the commission could not dictate any of the intricacies on the project. Atty Costa suggested rephrasing in the question of what can be done to ensure the project gets done to what is the recourse if the project doesn’t get done. He added that it is a gift. He suggested that the commission would execute some legal documents with the skate park like, right of entry to do the work, who’s financing it, and a final plan. A Lockwood doesn’t want this project to go forward unless they have either a hundred percent funding. She wants a discussion and develop a list of things that the commission wants to see, the funding, the design, the cost, and possibly a construction bond. She wants it clear for both parties. She wants to have this before the group comes to the commission. ===PAGE 6=== K Menard wants to have a list of questioned that need to be answered from Town Counsel or the Skate Park Group and that the Skate Group is part of the discussions. She’d like to see the project break ground this year. G Roy stated that he thinks what A Lockwood’s concerns are addressed by what Atty Costa said. He believes the discussion would benefit all for a final agreement. He mentioned that Townsend has projects done by a private benefactor as a gift to the town. K Menard asked about other town skate parks and what the process was. She’s concerned about the finishing of the project and maybe having a bond in place for completion if the group cannot. G Roy conveyed that the documents will all be contractually bound. A Lockwood asked the commission if they thought there was value in having a list. Discussion followed on the permits, boards involved and the process. G Roy suggested getting a list together for Town Counsel and work off that and make changes if needed. Corrine Scouten stated she didn’t follow the Skate Park page so she was surprised at the last meeting to get the info on the park. She suggest the skate group have a public comment meeting. D Passios stated that the skate park has been committed to for an initial design. Discussion followed about a public forum. K Menard asked the members to send her via email any questions and she’ll send them to Town Counsel, Town Manager and take it up at the next meeting. 9. Marshall Park Survey RFP discussion- K Menard conveyed that she needs to speak with the Asst Town Manager to get things going. D Passios will save his comments but sees no problem with putting out an RFP for a project that they are doing though they don’t have funding yet. He’s afraid it will slow the process by waiting until they get funding in place. G Roy stated he doesn’t see a problem from his point though concerned that it’s too early and April might be better. Discussion followed on the timeline to submit the RFP. No vote at this time. 10. Other Business-none a. Other business matters that may legally come before the board not known at the time of posting D Passios wants to add an Agenda item for next meeting is portable toilets for the parks for the 2023 season. C Sullivan reminded there’s an open seat on the board, and that it’s been posted. b. Correspondence, Announcements and Public and board Comment 11. Next meeting date/agenda Discussion on the Design survey timeline. Next meeting is February 17th at 7pm. 12. Adjourn Motion to adjourn at 10:35 by D Passios, seconded by C Sullivan, Roll Call A Lockwood-Aye, C Sullivan-Aye, D Passios-Aye, K Menard-Aye Respectfully submitted Dawn Pavone Minutes Secretary