Design of Scranton Middle School Athletic Field Concerns Residents
Homeowners are concerned about noise, lights and traffic from sporting events after the new middle school field is built.
More than 50 homeowners attended Brighton Superintendent Greg Gray's meeting at Scranton Middle School on Tuesday night to find out information about the new athletic field that will be built behind the school next spring.
The athletic field is one small part of an $88.4 million bond approved by voters in May. The bond also provides for building updates at the middle school, including secure vestibule installation, flooring replacement, a new building fire alarm system, additional power for technology upgrades and more.
The homeowners are mostly concerned with noise, light spill, traffic and parking once the new facilities are built. Many of them also were angry that the football field will now be located behind the school with the other athletic fields.
The location of the football field was originally planned in front of the school but was changed when the Livingston County Road Commission required an additional 100-plus feet to complete the new Scranton roundabout, which pushed the proposed field into a secondary septic system that the district may have to look at some day if the primary septic system fails.
In terms of consolidating athletic facilities, it made more sense to have the football field in the back of the school along with the soccer fields, baseball/softball diamonds and tennis courts, Gray said.
Many residents were upset that they did not have a say in the location change and some of the additions to the facility, such as concessions and restrooms.
"It's easy to understand; some people are going to love it (Scranton field) and some are going to hate it," Gray said. "I would never hold a meeting before planning because then I can't answer any of your questions. I want the same things as you want. I want your neighborhood not to be impacted. I want facilities for the kids. It's a balancing act."
Gray said the district is purchasing specialized lights that will reduce light spill by 50 percent. The lights only will illuminate the field and a small part of the bleachers, he said. Gray also said the speakers for the public announcement system will be angled inwards towards the bleachers in order to reduce sound bleeding into the surrounding area.
Bob and Brenda Goebbel said they pay $15,000 extra for their lot at the end of a cul de sac for the rural feel and do not want any school facility polluting it.
"We absolutely do not want a public announcement system," Brenda Goebbel said. "We absolutely do not want concessions or a press box. That was not on the original bond application. I want to see it moved back to the original site. The fact that there's a reserve septic field that might be impacted somewhere down the road is not a good reason. You can put a reserve septic field anywhere. All those things not part of the bond I don't want to see put in. I don't want the lights put in either."
Brenda Goebbel said she didn't even know the football field was being moved from its original location.
"I'm upset that none of us were notified about this," she said. "We only found out about it because a neighbor has a kid that was going to be playing soccer on a new field. I feel like we're being bulldozed. They could have notified the people most impacted. If he (Gray) would have announced that, he would have had a lot more people in here tonight."
Matthew Prusky said he is in favor of the Scranton field because both he and his wife are active and like to take walks with their young daughters, ages 2 and 4.
"A lot of arguments are difficult to understand," Prusky said. "Brighton has streetlights 24 hours a day right there, where many of these people live. I think a lot of people my age or younger who have children are going to be really in favor of this because they have kids in sports and this is a great thing. It makes the area look more attractive."
Gray said he will take residents' concerns and suggestions back to the Board of Education and discuss parking concerns with the district's police liaison officer. Construction is planned between April and August for the new facilities.
Gray said he plans on holding additional bond update meetings for residents in the neighborhoods near Brighton High School and Spencer Elementary School to talk about the work planned for those buildings, but does not have any dates confirmed yet.
To see the original bond application or the schematic designs for the first bond series, visit the Brighton Area Schools website Bond Update page.
Eric Sellers
4:57 pm on Wednesday, October 10, 2012
Unbelievable! We basically have a Parks & Recreation Millage disguised as a School Millage, and the Brighton Area Schools are distroying two perfectly good soccer fields for one single complex when they could have five fields to serve the community. Although the new field will serve a wider varity of sports, this isn't making sense with the demand that we were told about prior to the vote. I even supported Millage, and this is how there spending our money. Good Job Brighton Area Schools!
Nicole Krawcke
7:39 pm on Wednesday, October 10, 2012
Hi Eric. Thank you for your comment. However, if you look at the design for the fields included in the photos, you will see the two existing soccer fields will remain. The new additions will include the tennis courts football field, which will also be used for soccer and lacrosse. When I was talking to people in support of the bond before the vote, one of the main reasons they said they were supporting it was the athletic facility upgrades because their kids didn't want to play sports at Brighton. If you're not in favor of the athletics upgrades, where would you rather see the money spent?
Eric
9:54 pm on Wednesday, October 10, 2012
Nicole,
Let me clarify, there are currently four soccer fields in the rear of the Scranton. The millage marketed a new field complex to be located in the front of the school, making a total field count of five. However, this newly proposed location is going to utilize the space where two existing field are located. I hope this helps.
Nicole Krawcke
10:06 pm on Wednesday, October 10, 2012
Absolutely! Thanks for clarifying, Eric! So where would you rather have the bond money go?
Eric
9:29 am on Thursday, October 11, 2012
After hearing Dr Gray's presentation and seeing how the Brighton Area Schools are varying drastically from what they presented to the voters. I would tell every voter to research and verify that thier specific interest that made you vote for the bond is still being considered.
Francy Steffey
12:08 pm on Friday, October 12, 2012
I am in agreement with Eric's comments and Brenda's comments that were quoted in the original post...however...I want to remind everyone that there are 280 condominiums located on the south side of Lee Rd. that will directly be affected by these facilities. Alot of these people chose this location for their retirement home because of the peace and quiet of this area. Most of them do not have children in the District and probably wouldn't even be aware of Dr.Grays "weekly letter" that is posted on line. Whether they voted for or against the bond their taxes will also pay for it.
I also attended Dr. Gray's presentation and find it unexcusable that neither he, nor his committee members were even aware of the traffic and parking problems along Lee Rd. How can they claim to have chosen the best location with eveyone's interest in mind when they, and I quote, "never have a need to drive that far down Lee Rd" ?
Francy Steffey
Francy Steffey
12:12 pm on Friday, October 12, 2012
Correction: There are 280 condominiuns NORTH of Lee Rd.
sylivapark82
5:58 am on Saturday, November 10, 2012
Well, that seems a good thing that local business is raising at a big level. I found this information while searching for design firm. Thanks for sharing.
<a href="http://www.tvdfirm.com/">Scranton advertising firm</a>