While no vote was taken, Planning Board members on Monday gave negative feedback to the Parks & Recreation Department director about the Pyne Field redesign the department proposed.

Over the past several meetings, both the Planning Board and the Community Preservation Commission (CPC) have raised safety and cost concerns. The project, which includes a cricket pitch, youth baseball field and parking lot, involves crossing an easement to get from the parking lot to the fields.

This area, off Fruit Street, is adjacent to JB Sawmill, which shares the easement. Children and adults carrying equipment crossing the easement to get to the field may not be visible to the drivers of the sawmill’s 18-wheeler trucks, members said.

Parks & Rec director seeks guidance

At Monday’s meeting, director Jon Lewitus explained the issues that have been raised and asked for direction. The Parks & Recreation Commission, he said, will not allow any additional money to be spent on more design work until the Planning Board provides a vote or feedback.

He added that his understanding was that the board would be considering information gleaned from a peer review from Pare Corporation. Answers to questions contained in this review were provided by Gale Associates, the consulting firm for Parks & Rec.

This peer review did not address “a few glaring concerns” raised in previous meetings, Lewitus continued. These included the distance from the parking lot to the field, the lack of a ramp for strollers, and queuing concerns on Fruit Street and on the easement.

Chair Rob Benson said he has served as a youth coach for multiple sports. He stressed the issue of responsibility coaches have for the participants from the time they get to the field until they leave.

Said Benson: “My opinion hasn’t changed on the safety concerns.”

Several members agreed. Amna Diwan said money should not be spent on a parking lot that it seems people will be unlikely to use. Lucia Lopez said the parking lot as proposed isn’t visible from the field.

Parker Happ added that the expense of the necessary electrical vehicle charging station infrastructure had not been calculated initially. The policy didn’t exist when the project was approved at Annual Town Meeting. He called this “scope creep.”

As the board’s CPC liaison, he noted that the CPC is waiting for the Planning Board’s feedback before allocating additional funding. The CPC has proposed two articles. One would support the current plan. The second would support a funding request to seek a different location for one of the fields and an engineering study.

The project is expected to cost $2.8 million. The CPC previously approved a $1 million grant.

Consolidated site design gains traction

Asked Lewitus: “Is there a design that would put these fears to rest?’

Happ questioned if the easement could be moved. Lewitus explained that it had been considered early in the process but was rejected by abutters. The sawmill has rights to the easement, he added.

Lewitus suggested having two fields with two separate parking lots on the same site. This would negate the need for the parking lot across the easement. The baseball field with parking could be modified for one field with parking. The lower level could contain the other playing field with parking.

Benson said that strategy “would go a long way” to ease concerns. Lopez agreed, citing the “convenience factor” as well as safety.

Additional concerns raised by consultant

Pare Corporation consultant Emma Yeh pointed out 41 issues in her analysis. She addressed nine of them where she sought further clarification.

A main concern was the placement of the third-base dugout within the required minimum setback from the street. Landscaping and granite curb pavement would be required in front of the parking lot unless the Planning Board grants variances, she said.

Benson didn’t entertain a vote on the project because of the feedback during the meeting. The hearing was continued until the next meeting on Jan. 5 in an 8-0 vote.

ZAC works to meet MBTA Communities deadline

Benson brought up the upcoming Zoning Advisory Committee (ZAC) meeting on Wednesday and urged Planning Board members to attend. The sole agenda item is a continuing discussion on how to modify the town’s zoning plan to make it compliant with guidelines set forth in the MBTA Communities law. Right now, the state considers Hopkinton’s plan “conditionally compliant.”

ZAC has been discussing this issue for two meetings, explained vice chair and ZAC member Matthew Wronka. At two meetings before then, a quorum could not be reached.

He added that there is a sense of urgency. A compliant proposal must be approved at Annual Town Meeting on May 2 and submitted to the state by late May. The warrant will be open for a month beginning Jan. 2. ZAC and the Planning Board need to agree on a plan for a warrant article and submit it by Feb. 1.

Wronka added that the Planning Board was “down to the wire” before last year’s Special Town Meeting when ZAC provided three options. Consequently, the approved proposal missed one requirement. There was no time beforehand to submit the approved proposal for state review.

The law requires that one MBTA Communities zone must contain 50% of the total required area, he continued. The current plan has three zones: a downtown area, The Preserve condominium complex and the Upper Cedar Street district. None of these zones comprise 50% of the total area needed for compliance.

ZAC has considered options that require “minimal changes,” Wronka said. One is to connect two existing zones with a strip of parcels, creating one larger zone. Adding Carbone’s Restaurant to the Upper Cedar Street district would alleviate the problem. But that option was not popular with the Planning Board nor Town Meeting members. A last resort would be to create an additional district.

Happ said Carbone’s should be put “back on the map” to achieve “paper compliance.” He noted that the town is trying to finalize the purchase of this land with CPC funds. The proposed use is a pump house, he said.

Wronka said Carbone’s would be problematic because the zoning can’t include town-owned land with building provisions.

Benson said the board needs to be “well informed” when it supports a plan so that Town Meeting members approve the article.