Lifetime Citizen Portal Access — AI Briefings, Alerts & Unlimited Follows
Brighton residents urge district to halt or alter synthetic-turf project, citing health and environmental risks
Loading...
Summary
Multiple Brighton residents told the school board Jan. 13 they oppose installing two large synthetic turf fields near homes, raising questions about stormwater runoff, microplastics, disposal and testing; the board said public comment is noted but limited while related matters are pending review.
Multiple Brighton residents used the public-comment period at the Brighton Central School District Board of Education meeting on Jan. 13 to press the board to stop or change a planned synthetic turf and stormwater project behind Brighton High School.
Neighbors described the installation as materially different from earlier concepts and said trees and open green space were lost. “A disingenuous remark might contain some superficial truth, but it’s delivered with the intent to deceive,” said Betsy Cox, who urged the board to reconsider the project and called attention to environmental and health implications. Mark Diggory, who lives immediately adjacent to the fields, told the board that the stormwater basin appears to lack filtration for microplastics and infill and asked the district to produce a mitigation plan.
Several speakers asked for transparency about testing. Annie Leary said the district had not provided independent testing details and asserted, “2% of Brighton residents voted for this project” (Leary’s characterization). Jean Proctor told the board she believes New York State will make it illegal to install artificial turf by Dec. 31, 2026, and pressed the district to disclose who performed third‑party testing, the methodology used and whether tests looked for unintended contaminants.
Other speakers raised proximity and health concerns. Lauren O’Neil, whose house is 34 feet from the stormwater area, said she feared runoff into Allens Creek and questioned whether the district had followed its own Policy 5651 on environmental committees. She told the board she did not feel safe with “a quarter of 1000000 square feet of synthetic turf” so close to her bedroom window and asked why an environmental committee had not been formed.
Board responses were procedural rather than substantive. The board president said the district has received emails on both sides of the issue and that ‘‘given the nature of pending actions’’ some responses were limited while matters are under review; members urged residents with personnel or student-specific complaints to raise them privately with principals. The board also noted a public 'thought exchange' online remains open through Jan. 16 and said feedback collected there will be shared at a future meeting.
No formal board vote on the turf project occurred at the meeting. Board action taken at the session was limited to approving the meeting agenda, minutes and a consent agenda (field trips, fundraisers and gifts); the turf project was the subject of public comment only.
What’s next: continued community input and a promised sharing of thought-exchange results at a future meeting. Multiple residents said they will pursue environmental monitoring and testing; the board did not announce additional dates or a timetable for a decision on the field project.
