Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Parks Recreation Swenson Field topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Residents press council to reconsider Swenson Field plan; councilors debate spending for design after repeated ballot defeats
Summary
Neighbors of Swenson Field urged the council to avoid lighting and PA systems in any nearby redevelopment and to prefer upgrades at the Nashua Road complex; councilors reviewed field conditions, drainage and accessibility and expressed reluctance to spend $50,000 on a new design for a site many voters previously rejected.
Several residents from the Swenson Field neighborhood spoke during public comment at the June 25 Bedford Town Council meeting, urging the council to reconsider plans for a lighted, multi‑field complex at Swenson Field and to prefer improvements at the Nashua Road complex.
Roy Carey, who said he lives across McQuade Brook from Swenson Field, told the council the little‑league complex proposal was previously voted down and that neighbors oppose lighting, a PA system, a concession stand and septic work that would require drilling beneath the brook. Carey asked the council to prioritize the Nashua Road site, which has sewer access, and argued that filling and elevating fields there could allow fencing, lighting and better drainage without disturbing a residential stream corridor. Jane Carey, who said she also lives at 8 Hancock Drive, said the family is particularly concerned about nighttime lighting and PA systems and the impact on their ability to use their yard.
Council discussion on the agenda item about park facility improvements continued later in the meeting. Some councilors expressed concern about spending roughly $50,000 on engineering and design for Swenson Field given that similar proposals were recently defeated at the polls. Councilor Michael Strand said he opposed spending on the site now and favored alternatives such as portable lighting on Nashua Road or seeking other locations where a larger complex would receive broader voter support. Other councilors acknowledged maintenance and drainage problems at the site: staff and a few councilors noted past flooding and ongoing drainage issues and said some improvements (for example, raising the fields or additional pumps) might help short term.
A resident who attended a site visit described visible grade differences, the low central area near the snack shack and the sense that runoff from a paved parking area drains toward the central low spot; councilors discussed whether filling, raising fields or adding pumps could reduce flooding without large excavation. Some councilors noted state environmental rules restrict disturbance of certain fill areas and that any major regrading could require special permitting.
At the end of the discussion several councilors said they did not support moving forward immediately with the $50,000 design authorization, urging instead that the town consider short‑term fixes or explore alternative sites and further public engagement before committing to engineering work on Swenson Field. The council took no formal vote on commissioning design work at the June 25 meeting.
