Neighbors urge district to avoid Baird Road entrance for proposed CTE facility, raise safety and property concerns

Neighbors of Baird Road told the Board of School Trustees that a proposed entrance to a planned Career and Technical Education (CTE) facility should not be routed across their properties because the road is narrow, has a history of crashes and could damage adjacent yards and driveways.

The comments came during the board’s public‑comment period, when five residents spoke about projected traffic, safety and property impacts related to the CTE site and its possible connection to Baird Road.

Why it matters: The district and its consultants are still studying access options and said any connection to Baird Road would require engineering work and county approvals. Neighbors asked the district to pause work on evaluating a Baird Road entrance until more outreach and clearer traffic data are available.

Residents’ concerns

Anne Davis, a resident at 4601 Baird Road, said the driveway “would be right across from my driveway” and that the existing infrastructure “would not support the road.” She asked that “the entrance come in off the Carroll Road side properties.”

Steve Bell, 4535 Baird Grove, described Baird Road as “a small country road” and said it lacks curb and storm infrastructure. He told the board his neighbor, who learned of the plan only the day before the meeting, would be most exposed if a turn lane and vehicle queuing were added because their house “already sits very close to the road.” Bell also said the nearby Hickory Center already produces heavy peak‑period congestion and questioned adding more student traffic to that pattern.

Barry Brown, a Baird Road resident of 38 years, said the road is narrow and has a record of vehicles leaving the roadway, hitting mailboxes and getting stuck in ditches. He asked the district to “limit student access to that road to that entrance road that’s being proposed.”

Karen Peterson, who identified herself as an Eller River Township trustee and a Baird Road resident, thanked the district for early community engagement and urged district staff and consultants to visit the narrow parcel being discussed before finalizing access plans. Dustin Peterson, also a neighbor, urged the board to stop spending district money on evaluating a Baird Road connection and said required traffic studies and pavement sampling “will need to be completed as well as 4 samples obtained for the road that the district will have to pay for.”

District response and next steps

Superintendent Barker said the district “has every intention of meeting with folks who are going to be impacted by this project” once engineers have a clearer picture of the impacts. Dr. Bidding, who leads operations and safety, told the board that school‑safety guidance typically favors “two points of entrance and exit from a facility,” and that engineers are working with the county to identify what improvements would be required on Baird Road to permit a connection.

Dr. Bidding said the design team is exploring an internal connection to the high school campus and that county codes and drainage constraints will affect road‑improvement requirements. He said the district plans to perform traffic counts and obtain video of traffic flows on Wednesday — an attempt to observe the campus at “its worst” — and will report findings to the board and the community.

What the meeting did (and did not) decide

There was no formal vote or change to the project at the meeting. The board approved routine consent items earlier in the agenda, but no action was taken on site access for the CTE facility. District staff said they will continue engineering work, county coordination and community outreach before presenting any recommended access plan.

Clarifying context and outstanding questions

- Neighbors repeatedly noted Baird Road’s narrow width, shallow ditches and prior vehicle run‑offs; they asked for an on‑site visit by district engineers before advancing an entrance plan. - District staff said a two‑entrance design is being evaluated for safety reasons but did not recommend a final alignment at the meeting. - Residents gave differing informal estimates of additional student traffic (one speaker said “800” and then referenced “about 400”); the district did not provide an enrollment projection during public comment. - Dustin Peterson said traffic studies, pavement samples and any county permitting would add time and cost; the district confirmed traffic counts are planned.

Taper: District officials said they will schedule follow‑up meetings with neighbors once engineers produce more detailed assessments and options.