Southborough committee reviews Fayetteville Park plan proposing spray pad, dog park and accessibility upgrades

Southborough’s Community Preservation Committee on Oct. 16 reviewed a proposal from the Recreation Department to renovate Fayetteville Park, including an accessible spray pad and a fenced off‑leash dog park, and discussed funding, design and community concerns.

The Recreation Department presented a schematic plan and preliminary budget and said the town could pay $67,000 toward design work from the recreation revolving fund. The department also outlined possible outside funding — including state and foundation grants — and described outreach, accessibility and maintenance plans.

Why this matters: the park is one of the town’s more used neighborhood parks, and the proposal bundles two amenities residents frequently request — a water play feature and a dedicated dog area — while seeking to resolve access and maintenance questions that affect both daily use and capital costs.

Travis, a Recreation Department staff member who led the presentation, pointed the committee to the park map and described existing facilities. “That’s the park that we’re looking to take a hard look at right now. Definitely one of the more popular parks and playgrounds that we have in South Grove,” he said. He said the department envisions an accessible loop path that would connect a spray pad, picnic/ shaded family area, the existing basketball court and a dog park so people of all abilities can reach the amenities.

The proposal draws on multiple planning documents the town has completed, notably the town’s 2019 Open Space and Recreation Plan and the 2021 ADA transition self‑assessment for parks, which identified accessibility shortfalls at Fayetteville Park. The Recreation Department cited a 2022 Stanton Foundation survey and internal outreach showing broad community interest in both a water element and a dog park.

Design, cost and funding - The department proposed using $67,000 from the recreation revolving fund to pay design and permitting costs; recreation staff said that amount has been discussed as the department’s contribution because the amenity would be used in programming. The $67,000 figure is for design/development and related services, not construction. - The larger construction estimate remains preliminary and will be refined once the design is complete. Staff noted that the application and budget will be updated to reflect design refinements and any parking changes. - Staff identified several grant sources they intend to pursue: state and federal recreation/grant programs administered through the Massachusetts Executive Office of Energy and Environmental Affairs (EEA), the Mass Recreation grant programs, and other foundations. Staff warned that some state/federal grant approvals have experienced delays and that the EEA grant process requires a town meeting vote and may be a reimbursable grant with a later federal approval step.

Programming and site use Recreation staff said the town’s youth baseball and T‑ball program currently uses the field at Fayetteville on a rotating basis. They reported preliminary conversations with the local youth baseball and softball association and said the group was receptive to alternatives if a field had to be taken offline temporarily for construction. Staff also said the gazebo and playground are regularly used for birthday rentals and small programs and argued the spray pad would create new summer programming opportunities while avoiding lifeguard and water‑safety issues tied to a pool.

Layout, access and buffering The plan shows a spray pad roughly in the 7,000–9,000 square‑foot range (staff said the comparable design they reviewed was ~8,000 sq. ft.) and a dog park sized in plans around 13,000 sq. ft. Committee members pressed for clear separation between dog and child areas; staff described several buffering strategies under consideration — vegetation, berms/hedgerows, sight‑blocking screens, and moving gates away from the spray pad so an escaping dog would have to travel farther before reaching children’s play areas. Staff also said fencing could be 6–8 feet where necessary, but noted that building permits are required for fences over 6 feet.

Parking and circulation Committee members raised parking as a primary constraint. Current on‑site parking (painted or informal) is limited; staff said there are roughly a dozen marked spots on the park side and additional on‑street spaces, and that an initial plan to add parking within the park footprint was removed because it crowded the site. Staff said they will revisit the parking assumptions and circulate updated plans and cost estimates.

Maintenance and operations Staff said Department of Public Works will winterize a spray pad and that utility and treatment costs (most spray pads use a recycled water system) are expected and could be covered from the recreation revolving fund. Staff gave a rough range for seasonal utility/chemical and treatment costs between about $4,000 and $9,000 per year in examples from other towns but said final numbers will follow design decisions. For the dog area, materials under consideration included wood chips; DPW suggested wood chips to minimize mowing and maintenance demands, but staff agreed to re‑examine surfacing options with contractors and DPW.

Grant timing and phasing Staff described a likely timing constraint: some state/federal recreation grants close in January with a ~90‑day review period, and approvals have been delayed in recent cycles. To avoid stalling, staff said they are considering a phased approach (for example, building a dog park first and applying later for splash pad funding), but cautioned that separate applications are not a formal phase guarantee and could affect construction economies of scale.

Committee reaction and next steps Committee members welcomed the concept but asked for more detailed cost breakdowns, a clearer contingency percentage (staff used a 20% contingency in early estimates; the committee asked staff to re‑evaluate and justify contingency size or reduce it toward a 10–15% industry norm), updated parking counts, an explicit maintenance schedule/cost estimate and documentation of outreach. Staff agreed to refine the application, return with updated site plans and cost estimates, provide comparables for 8–15 other towns (square footage, funding sources, and historic costs), and post an updated packet to the town website ahead of the committee’s next review.

The Recreation Department and committee agreed to reconvene with revised materials; staff indicated plans to present updated application materials at the CPC’s November meeting.