The final direction of the Morses Pond beach and bathhouse project, the subject of discussions since before the pandemic, could be decided in coming weeks based on a new report and a series of meetings planned over the next two months.
The general concept has been to replace and relocate the Morses Pond bathhouse for usability, safety, accessibility and aesthetics. The “current master plan,” as it was described by the town’s consultants, has been to remove the structure on the north side of the beach and shift it to the opposite side, though the latest study does show possible alternative approaches on both the south and north sides that are significantly smaller than the current proposed structure on the south side.
The Morses Pond Beach Advisory Committee met on Sept. 15 to discuss the latest findings from consulting partner Weston & Sampson, which produced a supplemental feasibility study about placement of the bathhouse on the beach taking into consideration environmental and other concerns (see Wellesley Media recording). Town Meeting in the spring approved use of Community Preservation Act funds for the study.
The Morses Pond Beach Advisory Committee intends to make a recommendation about the project at its Sept. 29 meeting, then hand things over to the Natural Resources Commission (NRC), which created the Committee last year. The NRC is expected to make a decision in late October.
Not all communities still have local news outlets. Now, thanks to Swellesley’s partnership with Tiny News Collective, you can make tax deductible contributions to support our work.
Before that, other discussions will take place, including at the Select Board meeting on Sept. 16 (Board member Tom Ulfelder is on the Committee).
There will be more opportunities for public comment along the way.
Morses Pond Beach Advisory Committee and NRC Chair Jay McHale said early on during the Sept. 15 meeting that he was “appreciative of the fact that we have a lot of great data that the NRC can certainly look to as they make a decision…” He added later that “regardless of the choice that we make, we certainly have earned our keep in being able to reduce the overall impact to the beach area through some creative thinking and a lot of good work from Weston & Sampson…”
The feasibility study presented by consultants in part summarized results of digging stormwater test pits that allowed for exploration of soil with an eye for contaminants as well as infiltration and load capacity. The firm looked broadly as well at the pervious and impervious cover for different plans.
The study looked at trees, wildlife, and invasives in the area, plus analyzed grading that would be required for accessibility. The study zeroed in on possible disturbance of the beach area (placing the structure on the south rather than north side will create more disturbance, but either alternative would impact the area much less than the current master plan). Weston & Sampson also reviewed the maze of permitting that comes with this area, from wetlands to MBTA-related to recreational use requirements.
Weston & Sampson presented a modified bathhouse design (or “building program” in consultant-speak) that would condense the interior and exterior components of the bathhouse by more than 25% while in theory still meeting Recreation Department needs. The total square footage of the planned building vs. the modified one would be down by about 1,000 sq. ft. The number of toilet stalls and changing rooms would be reduced under the modified design, and a concession area would go away (vending machines would remain). Planned footpaths along the Ice Pond would also not be included under these designs.
A year ago the project was being talked about as possibly exceeding $9 million in costs. Total cost wasn’t discussed at the Committee meeting this week, though it was stated that condensing the project’s footprint would naturally slash costs. It was pointed out that locating the structure on the south rather than north side would be more expensive, in part due to running utilities across a longer distance, though there are some cost trade-offs with either scenario.
Neighbor Joe Schott commented during citizen speak at the start of the meeting that he appreciated the new data supplied in the study, and the ideas proposed that could lessen environmental impact of the project and result in significant cost savings. He also raised a concern that the study presentation now frames the Committee’s decision as being a new choice between modified designs on the north and south sides of the beach.
Schott said: “I think we went into this study trying to address whether or not putting the building on the south is environmentally feasible…does it meet the six recommendations that this committee laid out last summer… The reason I think that’s important is because… we’ve had five years of conversations about different preferences for siting of the building…,” and that after numerous public forums and a couple of Town Meeting votes, the south side was “the consensus location.” Getting back into conversations about location at this point would be “really going backwards”if both options are environmentally acceptable, he said.
Please send tips, photos, ideas to theswellesleyreport@gmail.com
