Neighbors press commissioners on parking, reservoir and aesthetics ahead of Fayetteville Park vote

Recreation staff briefed the commission on public feedback and survey results for a proposed Fayetteville Park redesign that would add a splash pad, dog park and walking trail.

Commission members were told staff collected roughly 350 survey responses, with about 72 respondents living within walking distance. Playground and courts remain the park’s core draws; 210 respondents identified restrooms as a desirable improvement and many asked for more shade. When presented with a rendering that explicitly described converting the T-ball area into a splash pad and dog park, staff reported about 57% of respondents favored the combined concept.

Several neighbors appearing at a recent Community Preservation Committee administrative session raised specific concerns staff expects to face again at the Dec. 18 CPC meeting. Those concerns included the loss of green space and views if a fenced splash pad is installed, whether the spray-pad would be usable only during warmer months, and the potential for increased parking demand during concurrent events at the nearby Historical Center. "They were worried about it blocking the view," a commissioner said of residents’ opposition to a mid-park fence.

Environmental and health questions also surfaced. Neighbors asked whether proximity to the reservoir could pose a risk; commissioners said staff will supply records of conversations with conservation and DPW to confirm that the splash pad will use a recycled, chlorinated system and is not equivalent to a septic expansion. A staff presenter summarized the technical difference by noting the spray-pad water will be recycled and chlorinated and that "winterization is done much like irrigation: blow the water out, make sure there's no water in the pipes." The commission also noted neighbors’ stronger concern about dog-waste management where a proposed dog park abuts the reservoir.

On liability, staff said both the splash pad and dog-park elements are commonly classified as recreational amenities and would be covered under the town’s existing insurance for recreational facilities; staff plans to bring written confirmation and suggested signage options such as "use at own risk" copies for CPC. On design, staff said the splash pad was modeled on comparable communities (Northborough cited) and sized using a planning formula for roughly 25 simultaneous users; renderings were produced by Activitas at a cost of $2,500 to date.

Parking remains a key outstanding item. Residents at CPC suggested the project might rely on deeded spaces at the Historical Center; commissioners asked staff to confirm (1) how many deeded parking spaces exist, (2) DPW’s current safe on-street capacity on Central and Winter streets, and (3) whether additional short-term parking or crosswalk/safety improvements are feasible. Staff committed to follow up with DPW and provide firm numbers for the CPC hearing.

Commissioners and staff emphasized that public outreach will continue before the warrant/town meeting and that elements of the design (size of splash pad, green-space allocation, fence placement) could be refined based on community feedback. The CPC discussion is scheduled for Dec. 18, when commissioners expect more neighbors to testify.

Next steps: staff will gather and present documentation on insurance coverage, conservation/DPW input about reservoir proximity and Septic distinctions, parking capacity and deeded spaces, and the survey methodology for CPC consideration.