Following a back and forth regarding the access road for JB Sawmill, the Parks & Recreation Commission on Tuesday agreed to seek advice from town counsel about the ongoing Pyne Field project.

The primary item on Parks & Rec’s agenda Tuesday night was a review of the 50% submission plan for Pyne Field. These plans were completed over the last few months following a vote by the commission in April to adopt a parking design for the joint baseball/cricket fields.

At the meeting in April, commissioners settled on a design that puts parking north of the sand pit on the east side of the property. Visitors would need to cross the driveway of JB Sawmill in order to access the fields. An alternate parking plan put a lot to the south of the fields, but the option was a tough sell for commissioners given fewer available spaces and potential issues with abutters.

Colleen Fowler of Gale Associates, the firm handling the design of Pyne Field, attended Tuesday’s meeting to provide the commission information on the project’s updated design and project costs. 

“We had a lot of field work done in the last few months,” Fowler said as she laid out the plan’s updated designs.

The 50% submission plan features a 60-foot baseball diamond with 200 feet out to center field. Fencing with safety netting is proposed along Fruit Street, along with new dugouts, a backstop and bleachers. The cricket pitch, according to Fowler, will be regulation size — 330 feet in diameter.

Following a brief review of the proposed features, Fowler explained that her team had drawn up two proposals for walkways around the fields. Option 1 would route a walkway between the baseball field and the cricket pitch, while Option 2 would travel around the perimeter of Pyne Field. 

One iteration of the walkway design for Pyne Field would route between the cricket and baseball fields.

The walkway going around the fields would be separated from the nearby access road for JB Sawmill by a chain link fence and timber guard rails.

“The option with the walkway between the fields we don’t think is favorable in terms of safety,” said Fowler. “We think it’d be a safer option … to surround the fields rather than go through them.” Fowler also noted that the first option likely would be a greater expense than the second.

Parks & Rec Director Jon Lewitus followed up Fowler’s review by asking the commission to consider the method for connecting the parking lot to the field. Both options would require a crosswalk and a number of stairs.

The connecting path in Option 1 is 255 feet long with about 45 steps. The second spans only 92 feet with “maybe 20-ish steps,” according to Fowler.

Option 2 for the walkway design at Pyne Field wraps around the perimeter of the field.

Sawmill reps say plan creates ‘dangerous situation’

Following Fowler’s presentation, attorney Neal Bingham appeared in front of the commission alongside his clients from JB Sawmill to provide opposition to the 50% submission plan.

“Right now, by putting a parking lot where you’re putting it, you’re requiring an untold number of people over the course of a summer to cross a driveway that is very, very active,” Bingham said.

Bingham explained that his clients’ primary opposition to the current iteration of the Pyne Field design is the crosswalk that would cut across the top of the sawmill’s access road. The commission previously agreed to adjust the field’s design to move the crosswalk to a better sight line for trucks going to and from the business.

“Are we substantially impacting the sawmill operations by utilizing a design like this?” Bingham asked. “The answer to that is a resounding yes.”

“A dangerous situation is being created,” he added, noting that an encroachment onto the sawmill’s easement negotiated with the town could open his client up to litigation in the event of a pedestrian strike.

Bingham’s resulting request was to slow down the design process and initiate conversations with town counsel regarding his client’s rights and the town’s liability.

“We moved the walkway at your request to where it now stands,” commission member Amy O’Donnell said at the conclusion of Bingham’s comments.

Bingham responded that his clients were doing their best to “make a bad situation better.” He alleged that the sawmill owners felt pushed into a circumstance where the options were not ideal.

When asked by Lewitus what an ideal solution for JB Sawmill would be, Bingham stated that “one of those fields should not be up top, it should be down below.”

Commissioners push back, express frustration

“Every time we come up with a solution, you come up with a different concern,” said O’Donnell. 

“Our concerns have been the same as day one,” Amy Brassard, one of the owners of JB Sawmill, responded.

Commissioners continued back and forth with Josh and Amy Brassard, along with Bingham, on the available options. Josh Brassard, the other owner of the sawmill, aligned his desire for a better solution with what Bingham stated previously.

“A parking lot for a field would be the most ideal situation,” Josh Brassard said. He also offered to complete land clearing services for free to put the parking lot in a different area. The option he referenced was determined in a previous meeting to be too small for the Pyne Field project.

“We’re talking about doubling the project cost for this,” Lewitus explained regarding the suggestion to split the fields with separate parking lots.

Chair Dan Terry also noted that the parcel of land on Fruit Street is divided for different uses. “There just isn’t enough room,” he said.

After more discussion, commissioners agreed there needed to be conversations with town counsel, but they expressed a desire to keep the project moving forward.

“It makes sense to go ahead and move forward with something at this point, even though we’ve got other questions to ask,” said Terry.

O’Donnell was frank in her response. “All we’re doing is chasing our tails, quite frankly,” she said.

Added O’Donnell: “I want to appease everyone’s concerns, but every time we appease a concern, seven new concerns come up.”

Eventually, the commissioners came to a consensus that Option 1 would be their preferred option. Lewitus agreed to retain the choice and let Gale Associates know when the necessary conversations have concluded in order to move the design process forward.