One of the primary issues discussed was the placement of the proposed parking lot relative to an easement, which could result in safety hazards for pedestrians, particularly children and the elderly, accessing the recreational fields. Board members voiced apprehensions about vehicles queuing on the easement, which could lead to traffic congestion and impede safe pedestrian crossing. The discussion included personal anecdotes about previous issues with illegal parking at similar facilities.

The board also considered the practicality of the parking lot’s location and its distance from the fields. Concerns were raised about the inconvenience this posed to families with young children, who might have to navigate a lengthy distance with equipment. There was a suggestion that if the parking lot were closer to the fields, it could mitigate some of the safety concerns. However, the board remained divided on whether the proposed location would encourage compliance with parking regulations or lead to further issues.

During the meeting, a visual presentation of the proposed design was shared, showing a parking lot layout that had been rotated 90 degrees. The applicant explained that a six-foot fence and a three-foot timber rail fence would be installed around the field to enhance safety and prevent spectators from standing outside during games. Despite these safety measures, concerns persisted about pedestrians crossing the driveway while trucks were moving through the area.

The board’s discussion also touched on the potential for future expansions of the facility, such as tennis and pickleball courts, and how the current design might accommodate these developments. However, the overarching theme remained the necessity of ensuring pedestrian safety and addressing community feedback.

In addition to the parking layout, board members deliberated on the project’s peer review process, which had focused primarily on stormwater management and overlooked key site plan elements like sidewalks and parking. This oversight highlighted the need for a review that would include these aspects.

The meeting also covered the topic of permeable versus non-permeable pavement. Members debated the maintenance requirements and costs associated with each option, with some advocating for permeable surfaces to address stormwater runoff concerns. The board also discussed the importance of adhering to bylaws related to electric vehicle charging stations, with some members reluctant to waive these requirements despite budgetary constraints.

Another agenda item addressed during the meeting was the proposal for restriping the parking lot on West Main Street. The board determined that this action represented a “de minimis” change to the existing site plan, as it would occur within the current paved area and maintain ADA compliance. The applicant was instructed to collaborate with town staff to ensure zoning bylaw compliance, and a motion to approve the proposal was passed unanimously.

Additionally, the board reviewed a scenic road permit application for a property on North Mil Street, which involved the temporary removal of a stone wall to connect electrical lines underground. After discussing the condition of the wall and the feasibility of its restoration, the board approved the permit with specific conditions for reconstruction and required photographs upon completion.