The Planning Board voted 8-0 on Monday to continue the public hearing on plans to redevelop Pyne Field until Dec. 1 after members continued to raise safety concerns.

The Community Preservation Committee in 2022 approved $1 million in funding to redesign Pyne Field for use as both baseball and cricket fields. Annual Town Meeting in May 2023 approved this allocation so the town could meet the resident demand for a cricket pitch.

Since that time, a new design evolved for the natural grass field. It changed the orientation of the baseball field in order to accommodate the cricket pitch. As of late September, the project cost had nearly doubled to $1,939,000.

Parks & Recreation Department Director Jon Lewitus presented the current proposal and showed previous iterations that the Parks & Recreation Commission had considered for the 66 Fruit Street location. He noted that the easement next to the field that allows JB Sawmill, located at 36 Fruit Street, to use the access road had been brought up as an issue at a Parks & Rec Commission meeting over the summer. In a letter dated Aug. 7, Harrington Heep, the town counsel at that time, stated that the project does not interfere with JB Sawmill’s access.

The main issue of concern at this meeting was the location of the proposed 95-space parking lot to be built on the other side of the access road. Members questioned how safe it would be for young children to cross the access road to get to the field.

Member Elyse Mihajloski mentioned the challenges parents carrying seats and coolers would face. She also noted that “parents will get lazy” and drop their kids and equipment off at the field and then circle back to get a parking space. Chair Rob Benson added that this could create a queue on the access road.

“I think, as a town, we need more recreation areas, and I want to see this happen,” said Benson. “But I have concerns about the safety of the situation.”

If people continue to park on the access road even after the parking lot is built, Benson said it would be “almost a worse situation.”

Several members agreed, echoing concerns raised at the previous meeting on Nov. 3. Member Lucia Lopez participated in a site walk on Saturday.

“In walking the site, it’s just incredibly inconvenient for a variety of different types of residents,” she said.

Vice chair Matthew Wronka asked Lewitus to talk about why previous plans that had the parking lot on the same side of the access road were rejected.

Lewitus explained that a few of the earlier concepts placed the parking lot to the south of the field. He termed this as the proposed “wooded parking lot.” Concerns were that it would be too close to abutters and have fewer spaces. Also, grading and tree clearing issues made the site less than desirable.

He added that the creation of the parking lot as currently proposed would alleviate the “illegal parking issue” that occurs at the lower soccer field and with cricket enthusiasts who park on the access road and watch matches from there.

Benson noted that the peer review had not yet been received.

When asked whether a drop-off area could be designed, Lewitus said it “is something we could pursue.”

Straw poll votes taken on Pyne

The board took three straw poll votes to provide Lewitus with some guidance. They focused on the request to wave the installation of infrastructure for electric vehicle charging stations, the desire for permeable pavement and whether the proposal adequately addressed safety concerns.

Regarding the waiving of the EV-ready infrastructure requirement, the board voted 6-2 against it. Benson and member Michael King voted in favor.

Five members voted for a permeable parking lot surface. Benson and Mihajloski voted as “indifferent.” Lopez said she was “unsure,” noting that she would prefer a permeable surface but did not know the cost to the town to maintain it.

Lewitus noted that any fees raised by the use of the field would go back into maintenance of the site.

Five members voted that the current plan is not safe. Wronka, Benson and member Peter Mimmo voted that it appears safe. Wronka clarified that he believed that this proposal would mitigate the concerns about parking at the soccer field.

Lewitus said he would review this feedback at the Parks & Recreation Commission meeting Tuesday. He also was scheduled to discuss the project Tuesday at the Community Preservation Commission meeting.

Starbucks/UniBank lot restriping proposed

The board voted to continue the hearing on the Starbucks/UniBank parking lot since the applicant has decided that they no longer want to seek additional spaces. The current proposal calls for the lot to be restriped to allow for 42 spaces, the current number. But it will design several spaces specifically for compact cars. It will move one accessible space.

Benson questioned whether the Planning Board would have purview over the project if it were solely a restriping issue. Previous iterations had called for four, three and two additional spaces.

Principal Planner Aneri Patel said the restriping project would fall under the jurisdiction of the zoning enforcement officer or building inspector. The hearing would have to be continued until the Planning Department received a letter saying that the proposal is being withdrawn from the Planning Board’s consideration, she added.

Andrew Steiner, representing the applicant, said he would be amenable to working with town staff on the restriping plan.

Nancy “Punky” Drawe, the chair of the Commission on Disability, expressed a concern that a previous proposal sought to move or adjust the current accessible spaces. The restriping would add one additional accessible space, bringing the total to three, she was told.