Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Park Development topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Advancement committee pitches park plan for former Dennisport church; commission raises wetlands, maintenance and parking concerns

Town Recreation Commission · October 23, 2024
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

The Dennisport/West Dennis Advancement Committee presented a concept to convert the town-owned former church parcel into a community park with a playground, walking loop, small grass pitch and temporary multiuse court; Recreation Commission members pressed the group on wetland delineation, long-term maintenance costs, parking and phasing before any Select Board approval moves the plan forward.

The Recreation Commission heard a detailed presentation from the Dennisport/West Dennis Advancement Committee on a proposal to convert the town-owned former church property into a community park, including a playground, perimeter walking path, picnic and seating areas, a small indoor community/storage area and flexible play surfaces that could host U7 soccer, pickup games and temporary pickleball courts.

Josh Vermeer, a member of the advancement committee, said the group developed scale diagrams and a questionnaire approved by the Select Board to solicit resident feedback. "We took GIS and plotted this out," Vermeer said, describing a grass pitch roughly 70 by 85 feet for small-sided soccer, a middle-school–sized hard-surface court that could hold up to three temporary pickleball courts, and a small indoor space converted from an existing garage for storage and restroom access.

Commissioners and staff stressed several constraints and process steps before the project can proceed. A recreation staff member warned that the committee must start with wetlands and conservation-area delineation because resource-area limits “will dictate the footprint” and may prevent planned fields or even paths in parts of the parcel. The staff member also flagged long-term maintenance as a central question: "Who's going to maintain it? How much is it going to cost to maintain? What's the maintenance budget going to be?" He offered to share recent cost estimates and to assist with planning.

Cost figures for specific items were discussed: a speaker cited moving an existing playground and installing a pour-in-place surface at roughly $130,000–$140,000; another committee member estimated that building or developing the site could be upward of $2,000,000. Vermeer said he had distributed about 50 paper questionnaires at the transfer station and that a significant share of residents were unaware the town had bought the property; he said the committee will post the questionnaire on the town website and can provide hard copies on request.

Commission members urged the committee to coordinate closely with the Recreation Commission, Department of Public Works and other volunteer committees (including disability access advocates) before returning to the Select Board. Several members recommended a phased master-plan approach—similar to recent work at Johnny Kelly Park—so early phases yield visible improvements without requesting full funding for longer-term features all at once.

Concerns about parking and neighborhood impact were frequent: commissioners asked whether adjoining condo and apartment complexes had been canvassed and warned that active uses (basketball courts, concerts or larger gatherings) require adequate parking and custodial plans for any restrooms or buildings. Committee members said they had discussed those tradeoffs and were preparing preliminary engineering and cost estimates once Select Board priorities were confirmed.

Vermeer and Kim Christiansen, another advancement-committee member, said the Select Board had given the group a green light to pursue public input; Vermeer said the committee hoped to produce preliminary designs and engineering estimates within roughly a year so that an RFP and initial construction could be considered by spring 2025 on an aggressive timeline.

The commission did not take formal action on the proposal during the meeting; several commissioners asked for copies of the questionnaire, requested that a Recreation Commission liaison join advancement-committee meetings, and scheduled further internal discussion before commenting formally to the Select Board.