===PAGE 1=== Park Commission March 16, 2022 Minutes Page of 41 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 Pat Hakey, Member March 16, 2022 MINUTES Members present: Karin Menard, Christopher Sullivan, Dave Passios, Ana Lockwood and Patrick Hakey. Absent: None K. Menard called the meeting to order at 7:00 PM. First item on the agenda, Board and Public Comment, none. Next item on the agenda, Presentation of two Marshall Park design alternatives by WOLA Landscape Architects. Kathryn Ostermier from Wright Ostermier Landscape Architects discussed the presentation for Marshall Park. Ms. Ostermeyer explained a draft design had been presented approximately a month ago and feedback was received. The two design alternatives presented to night have been revised from the comments received from the Parks Commission and the community. Ms. Ostermeyer gave a brief background of the steps taken before to get to this step in the design process. The first item discussed was the community input. Ms. Ostermeyer explained the amenities requested for the park rated as follows; 1.Accessible walking track 2.Playground 3.Picnic and Concessions 4.Ball Fields 5.Access to pond 6.Fitness circuit 7.Hard surface courts 8.Multi-Purpose lawns 9.Skatepark 10.Dog park Ms. Ostermeyer discussed Design Alternative #1. This design includes; ●Forty additional parking spaces along Chestnut Street ●Reoriented the 90 foot Baseball Diamond and the Softball field ●Little League field. ●Pedestrian route from Massachusetts Avenue and Chestnut Street. ●Encircling eight foot walking pathway that meets with ADA compliance. ●Restrooms and concession stand with pavilion. ===PAGE 2=== Park Commission March 16, 2022 Minutes Page of 42 ●Skatepark. ●Nature playground. ●Proposed septic area. ●Pollinator gardens. ●Hard surface courts for pickleball and basketball. The t-ball field will be relocated to another location in Lunenburg. Ms. Ostermeyer noted Design Alternative #2 was similar to Design Alternative # 1. The differences in the design are as follows; ●Sixty additional parking spaces along Chestnut Street, 150 parking spots total. ●Reorientation of all Ball fields, shared outfield has been removed ●The T-ball field will remain. ●A turnaround circle for the Fire Department. ●More centralized activities. Commission Comments D. Passios asked if the pull-in at the picnic area was just for ADA accessibility. Ms. Ostermeyer indicated it was intended to be used by seniors in addition to the other park visitors. A. Lockwood asked how many parking spaces were on Design #1. Ms. Ostermeyer stated 140. A resident asked what the park currently can accommodate. K. Menard referred to the Open Space Plan that currently shows approximately 60 spots. K. Menard asked if the Town chose to go with sewer versus septic on plan #2, would the parking be able to be connected. Ms. Ostermeyer noted the grading would make it tough, but could look into it . A. Lockwood asked if the walkway was paved. Ms. Ostermeyer indicated it was asphalt and complies with ADA requirements; more flexible and less than concrete. A. Lockwood asked the size of the dog park. Ms. Ostermeyer stated it is approximately 6000 square feet. A. Lockwood asked if the playground was natural wood or a composite. Ms. Ostermeyer stated it is natural wood, but could be composite, it is the Town’s decision. R. Delaney stated there were no bleachers around the ball field. He also inquired about the ability to cook in the new concession stand. C. Sullivan stated that is a Board of Health decision. A. Lockwood asked what the Town was giving up between design #1 and #2. Ms. Ostermeyer stated Design #1 has a small multi-purpose lawn and small central gathering area and the basketball court. Design #2, a larger central lawn, an arrival area at both the skatepark and the playground and the T-ball field. P. Hakey asked if the sidewalks along Massachusetts Ave. could be relocated. Ms. Ostermeyer stated yes. K. Menard asked if on Design #2, the concession stand and the pickleball could switch places. Ms. Ostermeyer stated yes. K. Menard asked if the softball and baseball outfields on Design #1 could be combined to compose a rectangular type field. Ms. Ostermeyer stated the grading has been reduced to a 2% grade. The shared outfields may impact the walkway and the fencing would need to be removed. ===PAGE 3=== Park Commission March 16, 2022 Minutes Page of 43 D. Passios asked if the dimensions on the fields are existing or new. Ms. Ostermeyer stated the infields have very clear standards, which are met currently and in the proposed. The outfields have more flexibility, the sizes will remain the same as they are presently. Public Comments R. Delaney expressed his concern with the drainage on the little league field and the reorientation affecting the new dugouts at the softball and baseball fields. Greg Roy, 105 Chestnut Street, noted he like Design #2 but had concerns about the parking being too close to the wetlands. Ms. Ostermeyer the area is outside the 30 foot no build zone. G. Roy asked when the cost estimates would be available. Ms. Ostermeyer indicated they are still working on them but would be over to the Commission by next week. G. Roy asked about emergency vehicle access to the fields. Ms. Ostermeyer stated they may widen a path but will add to the final drawing. Marianne Mascari, 54 Chestnut St., asked that the sun be taken into consideration when selecting the orientation of the fields. Joe Ruth stated there is a lack of outfield dimension requirement, the infields are very specific. He also asked that they consider netting or fencing between the fields. Dan Proctor, 1529 Massachusetts Ave., voiced his concerns about the need for the design to reflect a concession stand with the ability to cook and the dimensions for all the fields. A. Lockwood stated a design needs to be selected first before all the details can be laid out. Dan Proctor asked about the location of the memorials. Ms. Ostermeyer stated they have considered putting them on the end of the benches. There is also a possibility for a donation to go to the maintenance or donations of a bench. Pamela Porter, 114 Chestnut Street, stated she likes Design #1 and the foliage buffer. She would like to see a large buffer for the dog park. Pam Porter inquired about the length of the walking trail. Ms. Ostermeyer stated the proposed is 5000 linear feet. Dave Rogers, 82 Highland Street, voiced his dislike of incorporating the dog park and asked for some clarification on the parking. Ms. Ostermeyer explained there is a main entry off Massachusetts Ave, there are 90 degree spots and a turn around that has a 75 foot radius. David King, 3 Gabes Place, had concerns with the relocation of the T-ball field. He feels it belongs in Fitzgerald Field. There needs to be studies of Reservoir and Fitzgerald Fields, the parking is inadequate. K. Menard stated those are not included in the cost of this project. Chris Martins, 981 Northfield Road, had concerns about the T-ball field being relocated. K. Menard indicated that if the T-ball was to move to Fitzgerald an additional field would not be added. John Fortune, 50 Hemlock Drive, expressed his concern about the parking and direction of traffic on Design #2. Pat Flaherty, 298 Highland Street, noted he would like to see the basketball court be a multi-sports court. Tim Murphy, 97 Island Road, stated he like Design #2. He feels T-ball needs to be addressed. RJ Thibault, 19 Whitetail Crossing, stated the registration numbers that were quoted were not accurate. He agrees with Mr. Murphy that Design #2 is more likely to pass at Town Meeting. ===PAGE 4=== Park Commission March 16, 2022 Minutes Page of 44 Kathy Lowe, 99 Fairview Road favors Design #2 and the multi-generational use of the park. Chris Begley, 4 Whitetail Crossing, asked if it were possibly to keep the orientation of the baseball field as-is. Ms. Ostermeyer stated there is a possibility to reorient the Diamond. K. Menard asked which is the priority, the net at the 90 foot diamond or the sun. Dan Proctor stated that netting is a priority. Nick Betts from Meridian Associates indicated the baseball field has been designed based on the MIAA standards which refers to NFHS, National Federation of High School Sports. The dimensions are dictated to the foul poles so for the 90 foot Diamond the requirement is a 325 foot field to the foul pole and the arc of the outfield is not specific. He stated Design #1 orientation of the Diamond is pretty much exactly East or East Northeast which has been determined to be the preferred orientation. There is no real rule. Chris Begley asked if the basketball court on Design #2 could be relocated to the pollinator meadow. Ms. Ostermeyer stated the basketball court could possibly be relocated to the pollinator meadow. Ms. Ostermeyer stated the skate park needs to be visible to Law Enforcement and the relocation of the basketball court would not affect the line of sight. Chris Begley asked about fencing. Ms. Ostermeyer stated if it were to be viewed as a public park, you would have less fencing as compared to a baseball facility, you would want more fencing. D. Passios asked if the area between the 90 foot Diamond and the dog park was all a no touch zone. Ms. Ostermeyer stated the wall will stay because it is historic. Ms. Ostermeyer noted the area was considered less desired to be developed than others, but can revisit it. Ms. Ostermeyer noted currently the grading is not ADA compliant. D. Passios would like to see this project funded with ARPA funds, earmarks and grants. The Commission discussed their likes and dislikes for both designs. Majority of the Commission like Design #2, P. Hakey prefers Design #1. A. Lockwood asked if the Commission had received any input from the school. C. Sullivan confirmed an email was received. Next item on the agenda, Other Business K. Menard informed the Commission she had been to the beach house and took pictures. She expressed her concerns with the main wall stability, exposed wires, missing ceiling tiles and possibility of asbestos. D. Passios stated the Building Inspector was aware of the situation. He stated the wall is detached from the plate, the plate is rotted. He also stated the Building Inspector seems to think it can be repaired to be used for this upcoming season. The Commission will put this topic on their next agenda and officially request the presence of the Town Manager and Rob Thompson, Recreation Director. C. Sullivan motioned and D. Passios seconded to adjourn at 10:22 pm Andrea Mastrototoro, Board Clerk, Secretary