DEERFIELD — The Planning Board has approved a motion to continue to next month the public hearing on the site plan for the proposed park and recreation fields on North Main Street. The board also extended the permit deadline.
The North Main Street park is the first of several projects proposed by town officials in a push to revitalize the South Deerfield village over the next several years. Residents approved a $1.2 million appropriation at June 2020’s Annual Town Meeting for the acquisition of the parcel and construction of recreation fields, foot and bicycle paths, and parking. In October of that year, special Town Meeting voters approved using an additional $1 million in Community Preservation Act funds to support the project.
According to the project narrative, the park will be built in phases, with the first focusing on walking paths, multi-purpose fields, picnic areas and planted vegetation. Future phases may include field lighting and an outdoor basketball court. The park is expected to be open from 8 a.m. to 8 p.m., and will hold athletic games and practices for the Recreation Department as well as outdoor concerts when the bandshell is constructed.
The town has been pursuing the North Main Street project for several years, and the approval of a lower minimum frontage requirement at October’s special Town Meeting cleared the way for the town to move forward with the park in its current design.
The hearing on Monday night, which was continued from Jan. 3, was an opportunity for Jesse Moreno, managing partner at ProTerra Design Group, to respond to and address the peer review report provided by the town’s engineering consulting firm, Wood Massachusetts Inc.
Moreno explained that over the past year and a half, the design group has gone through multiple layouts and different ideas for how to put the field together. Wood Massachusetts was hired to review the plans in accordance with the town’s bylaws.
“One of the comments was the screening along the south property line,” Moreno said. “We added 35 vegetated screenings trees along there. … What that did was densify the understory, because there is a lot of large trees along that property line.”
Another concern addressed in the peer review, he said, was the field and the amount of fill to be used. Moreno explained that the design group, with the help of a heat map and a fields consultant, reduced a few thousand yards worth of fill material.
And finally, he highlighted the need for more guidance on erosion control that was addressed in the peer review.
The conversation with Planning Board members largely focused on stormwater management plans and the fill. Member Kathy Watroba asked where the fill would come from, and what constitutes the fill.
“Anything that’s under a pavement or walkway, you’d want a structural material,” Moreno explained. “This is what holds up vehicles. … It’s important fill in that area would be a granular structural material — that would be anything under the basketball court, under any of the asphalt surfaces, any of the pervious walkways.”
In areas of the field itself, a layer would be stripped from the site and “clean, granular fill would be brought in.”
“Where it gets very specific is beneath the fields — the root zone material, the drainage material, which consists mostly of stone, those are highly engineered materials. They’re very specific materials that are designed for the field,” he explained. “It would be very pervious, sandy materials because you want the fields to drain and infiltrate for a variety of reasons.”
During the public comment portion of the April 4 hearing, civil engineer John Chessia of Chessia Consulting Services — who was invited to the meeting by attorney Michael McClaughlin, representing abutter Judith Rathbone — raised questions about the designer’s use of fill on the site.
“I don’t think this project can really make claim to minimizing site disturbance, given the amount of fill,” Chessia said. “It’s questionable whether this really meets the green development performance standards. I would say probably not.”
Another big concern, he said, is that the proposed plan “changes the underlying hydraulic soil group.”
“They’re proposing to bring in fill to modify and change the soil conditions,” Chessia said. “I’ve been doing this for over 35 years and I’ve never seen this done.”
McClaughlin’s client Rathbone, who was one of two residents to speak during public comment, objected to the two minutes allotted to residents, compared to the nearly 90 minutes spent discussing plans with the designer and the town’s consultant.
“You make it really impossible for me to advocate for myself or any the abutters. … Your process is really defective,” she said.
Ultimately, the Planning Board’s hearing was continued to May 19, at 7 p.m.