Swansea team weighs three site approaches; wetlands, ledge and traffic shape choices

At its May 15 meeting the Swansea School Building Committee reviewed site options and constraints for the junior‑high project, including the existing school site, an addition/renovation scheme that preserves part of the historic building, and three new‑construction layouts on the district’s Wood Street/high school parcel.

The consultant team described the principal site constraints: wetlands and 100‑ and 200‑foot resource buffers, Chapter 97 land near Milford Pond, an on‑site stream, a 1927 historic building whose facade/use is constrained by a trust, and variable ledge across both candidate parcels. The team told the committee it will file a notice of intent with the DEP and work with the Conservation Commission as part of permitting.

On the existing school parcel, Finegold Alexander showed an addition/renovation approach that demolishes a maintenance building, constructs an addition on the existing asphalt so as to avoid the most sensitive habitat, phases occupancy so students can remain on site during construction, and restores site circulation with separate bus and parent loops. Consultants warned that phasing on the constrained site increases duration and premium costs and that modular swing‑space or off‑site rentals could be necessary during work.

The consultants offered three new‑construction concepts for the Wood Street/high school parcel (labelled N1, N2 and N3). Each is a compact, multi‑story building arranged to limit wetland impact and to take advantage of daylighting; the N3 concept nests the building into a slope to reduce visible massing and preserve more existing high‑school parking areas. All three new‑construction options would shorten construction duration and reduce educational disruption compared with a multi‑year phased renovation, but they would require ledge testing, septic redefinition and traffic/access changes.

Public safety and emergency access were recurring topics: the fire and police chiefs asked about circulation around buildings and suggested pervious emergency access surfaces where necessary to limit wetland impact. Consultants said emergency access could be achieved with stabilized, vegetated grid surfacing rather than full paving in parts of the buffer, but that any encroachment requires ConCom and DEP permitting.

Cost and schedule implications: consultants reminded the committee that phasing a renovation can increase contractor premiums, reduce bidder interest (if off‑site shuttle parking is required), and extend construction into a multi‑year program; they estimated a repair or phasing renovation could be longer and costlier on a district share basis than a new build in certain scenarios. The team recommended carrying all options forward to the PSR so the MSBA and community can compare program, site impacts, and district share.

Decision/direction: the committee did not eliminate any site alternatives; the consultants recommended advancing all three new‑construction alternatives plus the addition/renovation and repair options into the next PSR phase for further study. The committee agreed and directed the team to refine site testing (borings, ledge), traffic analysis and wetland permitting assumptions for PSR.

Ending: The project team asked the committee to confirm evaluation criteria by June 3 so the study team can finalize the PSR package that will compare educational outcomes, environmental impacts, constructability and district cost for each option.