Southborough — Residents living beside Harold E. Fay Memorial Field urged the Community Preservation Committee on Dec. 11 to reconsider elements of a proposed recreation overhaul, with multiple neighbors voicing particular opposition to a splash pad and worry about parking and proximity to the town reservoir.

The CPC did not vote on the Fayetteville Park proposal at the Dec. 11 meeting and will take up formal recommendations on Dec. 18 after recreation staff deliver final cost estimates and additional information about permitting and design. Lisa, chair of the committee, said the Dec. 18 meeting will be used to confirm whether the applications meet CPC requirements and whether funding should be put forward to town meeting as a warrant article.

Neighbors described anticipated impacts on the immediate streetscape and town resources. “I strongly oppose the splash pad,” said Laurie Bridal, a nearby resident, citing her view that green space is used year‑round and that a splash pad in New England would be seasonal and underused. Dean Lamsa, another neighbor, asked the committee to use the site’s formal name and to consider traffic and enforcement issues on Winter Street, saying unauthorized parking and vehicles already create safety concerns near the park.

Other residents raised environmental and liability questions. Karol Sharma cited erosion and pedestrian safety on Winter Street and asked how a water feature so close to the reservoir could be approved when private septic projects farther from the reservoir received limits. Residents also asked whether the splash pad’s recirculating water system, drainage plans and insurance implications had been vetted.

Kristen, the recreation representative who addressed the committee, said survey responses have been “rolling in” and that “we have a few at least several 100 at this point,” and confirmed the recreation department intends further public forums between the CPC decision and town meeting to refine design and respond to neighbors’ concerns. She and committee members said the design firm will proceed to fuller engineering and permitting steps only if the project advances; permitting and formal design will address questions about drainage, proximity to state‑protected land and insurance.

On specific project features, neighbors objected to a proposed fenced dog‑park structure as an “eyesore” and urged the committee to prioritize additional parking rather than new amenities. Recreation members said a nearby lot and DPW striping work are being evaluated and that more detailed parking numbers would be available at the Dec. 18 meeting.

The CPC emphasized that its role is to vote on whether a project meets CPA funding criteria and to place a warrant article before town meeting; if recreation later changes the plan substantially before town meeting, it would need to return to the CPC to adjust the warrant language and funding amounts. Travis from recreation was not present on Dec. 11 but is expected Dec. 18 to answer outstanding technical and design questions.

The committee encouraged residents to submit written comments and attend the Dec. 18 meeting. The CPC will decide whether to forward the recreation warrant article to town meeting after receiving final budget, parking and permitting details.