Neighbors urge council to reconsider Swenson Field plan; council hesitates to spend design funds after recent ballot defeat

Public comment at the Bedford Town Council’s June 25 meeting raised strong neighborhood opposition to a proposed little‑league complex at Swenson Field, and councilors signaled they were reluctant to fund new design work for the site after a recent ballot defeat.

Roy Carey, who said he lives at 8 Hancock Drive across McQuade Brook from Swenson Field, told the council the earlier March election rejected a little‑league plan “in part because Bedford taxpayers did not want numerous lighted fields, a concession stand, a restroom facility, and a PA system in a residential area.” Carey urged the council to reconsider upgrading the Nashua Road complex instead, noting Nashua Road has a nearby sewer line whereas the Swenson Field plan being considered included a septic force main and drilling under McQuade Brook.

Jane Carey (same address) said she and neighbors can hear conversations from games and opposed PA systems and new nighttime lighting that would change the character of their backyards; she said permanent lighting and a paved parking lot would “greatly impact our home and all of our neighbors.”

Council discussion returned repeatedly to the same points. Several councilors and staff noted the complex history: designs and a ballot article were defeated recently and the community is divided. Councilor Bill Carter said he supported obtaining a firm design and cost estimate “so that we have…how much it’s gonna cost” before any petition or future measure, but other councilors opposed spending money now on a design for a location they believed had low chances of passing again.

Concerns discussed included accessibility (the field slopes downhill and may not accommodate persons with limited mobility), drainage and flooding in the lower center area adjacent to the snack shack, and the town’s ability to place fill or disturb the site because of earlier fill and environmental constraints reported in previous studies. Council members expressed differing views on whether portable lighting could provide a short‑term fix; some said portable lights would address scheduling and that a longer‑term site search or private‑public partnership might yield a better permanent solution.

Resident Tom Slattery, who said he lives across the street from Swenson Field, urged the council not to waste design money because a major investment would likely fail at the ballot box; he estimated paving and parking could add $400,000–$700,000 in cost and warned the public would not support a much larger figure.

No formal action was taken to commit design funds. The council’s de facto direction was cautious: several members said they would not approve spending the design/test funds at this time and instead prefer to explore alternatives, portable solutions, or wait for broader consensus before returning with a refined, costed plan.