Architects and town staff presented a schematic for a proposed middle-school at the Pollard/DeFazio site and described a multi-year, phased construction plan that would reconfigure several fields and parking areas at the Rosemary Recreation Complex.

The presentation, given at the Park and Recreation Commission meeting on Oct. 22, walked commissioners through how construction could proceed if the school is sited on the Pollard side. Merrill Nisler, a representative of the Department of Public Works, and members of the project’s architect team described an initial timeline that starts design work now and anticipates construction beginning in 2027.

“This is very much an iterative process,” an architect on the project told the commission, asking commissioners and community members to continue submitting questions and feedback as designs evolve.

Commissioners and multiple speakers pressed for specifics they said the schematic did not yet provide: what land the commission would receive in any jurisdictional transfer, precise parking counts and how long existing fields would be unavailable during construction. Several commissioners urged staff to circulate answers and to send a factual update to user groups.

Why it matters: the proposal would affect youth and high‑school athletics, neighborhood access and routine field availability in Needham. Commissioners said that even if the final project returns the same number of fields overall, the years‑long construction disruptions — including fields taken out of service — could reduce program revenues and force user groups to relocate events and practices.

What the plan shows
- Timeline and phasing: The architects outlined a plan that would fence and build on parts of the Pollard/DeFazio complex, construct a new parking area and build a school within a redlined construction zone. The team estimated roughly 2½ years of active construction for the principal building phase, with additional months for field construction and turf/grass establishment after building completion.
- Field interruptions: The presentation estimated that the Healy Field area taken for temporary parking and construction could be out of service for about 34 months, a smaller field about 31 months, and the Pollard field about 11 months while demolition and site work proceed. Those figures included establishment/settling time for newly built fields.
- Parking: The architects’ sketch initially showed a parking area of about 162 spaces where roughly 200 exist today; later slides and discussion projected a final total of about 450 parking spaces available for field users after full buildout, including school‑dedicated spaces available to field users outside school hours. Commissioners asked for confirmation of those counts and a clear accounting of existing vs. proposed supply.
- Site layout and circulation: The schematic placed new 11v11 fields on the upper portion of the site, added walking and biking connections through tunnels and along the reservoir, and proposed bus drop‑off and staging areas on Amherst Avenue and at Higgs Park for certain field events.
- Stormwater and utilities: The plan includes stormwater detention beneath new parking and calls for stormwater upgrades on multiple town properties. Commissioners asked whether irrigation systems, electrical panels and other field infrastructure would be relocated, and who would pay those costs.

Commissioners’ concerns and requests
Commissioners repeatedly emphasized three overarching issues: (1) jurisdictional clarity and whether Park and Recreation would receive equivalent acreage in any land swap; (2) the multi‑year loss of specific fields and the costs to user groups and program revenues if fields are offline; and (3) traffic, parking, lighting and neighborhood impacts — especially on Georgia Avenue and other nearby streets.

Several commissioners asked the architects and town staff to: compile and circulate a joint list of questions and answers; publish FAQs and the schematic on the project website; provide traffic‑study findings; and prepare an informational, factual notice that the commission can send to user groups explaining likely impacts and key dates. Commissioners said the notice should be neutral and factual and that staff should over‑communicate rather than risk leaving groups uninformed.

Funding and field surface choices
Architects and staff stressed that some field choices — notably artificial turf — are expensive and usually fall outside Mass School Building Authority (MSBA) reimbursement. One project presenter said an added artificial turf surface could add roughly $5,000,000 to the price tag and would likely require a separate, multi‑year funding request. Commissioners noted that the Park and Recreation Department would be responsible for turf requests and argued they need early cost estimates to assess fiscal impacts and match funds.

User‑group impacts and scheduling
Commissioners and several attendees asked how large events — including the town’s long‑running Memorial Day soccer tournament — would be affected if fields go offline for months or years. They warned that long closures could push families and teams to other programs, reducing revenue and participation when fields are restored.

Project next steps
Town staff said traffic analysis and additional engineering work are underway and that architects will refine the schematic. Presenters asked commissioners to submit detailed questions; staff said they would bundle those and return answers in writing. The project team also said it would add more detailed visualizations, engineering constraints and utility information at future briefings.

Votes at a glance
- Motion to approve minutes of the previous meeting: approved unanimously (roll‑call recorded: Dina — aye; Michelle — aye; Chair — aye). The mover and seconder were not specified in the meeting record.
- Motion to adjourn: approved unanimously (recorded at the end of the meeting).

What the commission asked staff to do
Commissioners asked staff to: collect and circulate written answers to outstanding questions; publish FAQs and updated schematics on the project website; coordinate a factual notice to user groups explaining impacts, timelines and opportunities for comment; and continue to require traffic and utility analyses as the design matures.

The meeting record shows continued, substantive engagement between the commission, DPW and the project architects. Commissioners said they support exploring options for a new middle school but that they need explicit, written offers about acreage and clear mitigation plans for field loss, parking and neighborhood impacts before endorsing site transfers or final plans.