Following a review of designs for parking at Pyne Field, the Parks & Recreation Commission on Thursday night agreed to have Parks & Rec Director Jon Lewitus obtain additional information from the design contractors.

The meeting on Thursday was what chair Dan Terry described as the first of a series of meetings to finalize the parking lot placement and design for Pyne Field.

“For where we are in this process, I think it’s a good idea to get the commission’s thoughts, ideas and questions,” said Terry. 

“I think we’re going to need to go back to Gale Associates and get answers on some of this stuff,” he added.

Lewitus took the commission through the two designs Gale Associates had developed following site evaluation and consultation with the Parks & Rec Department. Lot A, which would be situated east of Pyne Field at the existing sand pit, would have 101 parking spots available. The design would force pedestrians to cross over the existing access road for the nearby sawmill.

This schematic provided to the Parks & Recreation Department by Gale Associates shows the design for Lot A.

Lot B would be situated to the south and have 77 parking spots. A gravel walkway would cut through a wooded area up to the cricket and baseball fields.

While it is too early in the design process to have exact costs for both options, Lewitus said that Gale Associates had provided him with some rough figures. Lot A could cost around $300,000 to construct, while Lot B might run as much as $250,000. 

“I want to stress these are very, very, very early-on numbers,” said Lewitus. “They could be more, or they could be less.” He noted that the costs of tree clearing and other factors could increase or decrease these estimates.

Both plans have significant benefits and drawbacks. Lot A would provide more parking but, as Lewitus noted, using the sand pit for a parking lot would curtail further growth of athletic facilities at Pyne Field.

“If we put a parking lot here, there’s no future availability for an athletic field, or facility or anything else that Parks & Rec might have a need for,” he said.

Added Lewitus: “We severely lack facility space — both indoor and outdoor.”

Lot B at Pyne Field would be situated to the south and feature 77 parking spots.

Pedestrians crossing over the access road also remains a concern. Representatives from JB Sawmill, who were present at Thursday’s meeting, consistently have been advising against a parking solution like Lot A. 

This concern has informed attempts at alternate designs, including a new accessway for parking. That proposal ultimately was scrapped after the Community Preservation Committee declined to support it. Members of that committee proposed an alternate plan in December, which evolved into the design for Lot B.

The second parking option avoids having pedestrians cross the access road but is nearly 25% smaller than Lot A. The design falls in line with directives Parks & Rec gave Gale Associates, but commission members were not convinced the smaller lot size would solve more systemic parking problems at Pyne Field.

Member Kyle Smith said Lot A would help to limit cars parking along Fruit Street and the access road. Opting for the smaller option would be “all for naught if you have something that is inconvenient, overcrowded,” he added.

The commission also heard comments about the impact of Lot B on abutters. Fruit Street resident Alexander Zwillinger talked about how close the second option would be to his house and his concerns over noise and foot traffic.

Another abutter responded to a comment Lewitus made about the woods that would separate Lot B and abutters’ houses. “The wooded area is not a densely wooded area,” he said. “It’s cheap pine trees.”

The commission debated the ways it could resolve abutter concerns and the drawbacks of each plan. Members suggested pushing Lot A further north and putting the road crossing where sight lines for the sawmill trucks are better. They also discussed how far northwest Lot B could be pushed without running into issues with other abutters or geographic constraints.

An idea for sharing parking with Victory Field just to the north of Pyne Field was discussed briefly. Terry noted any expansion of the existing Victory Field parking could run into watershed problems. 

After further discussion, the commission directed Lewitus to go back to Gale Associates with its questions regarding the two proposed designs.