Residents press Brighton school board after excavation uncovers historic ash and cinder beneath planned turf field

The Brighton Central School District heard strong neighborhood concerns and a technical briefing on Wednesday after excavation work at the high‑school athletic field uncovered historic ash and cinder that consultants say contain contaminants above regulatory thresholds.

Mark Diggory, speaking for residents who live along Brooklawn, Lynwood and Hollyvale drives, submitted a neighborhood‑prepared packet and urged the board to require mitigation tailored to proximity impacts. "It outlines our concerns and proposes practical mitigation measures to address the project's negative impacts on nearby homes," Diggory said, asking specifically for lower‑risk infill materials, infill containment fencing, vegetation berming, improved pedestrian access and lighting controls.

Kim McGarry, a scientist and parent, urged the board to consult academic expertise and reconsider rubber crumb infill. "In 2023, the European Union already banned rubber crumb rubber infill from artificial turf fields due to microplastics," she said, and asked the district to consult Cornell University's Turfgrass and Safe Sports Field Program before finalizing materials.

Engineers and environmental consultants described the discovery in technical detail. Brian Sesilinski, senior principal at SEI Design Group, told the board contractors encountered more historic fill than initial geotechnical cores indicated. "Upon doing so, we encountered some cinder and ash," he said, and described how Terracon and the contractor performed additional test pits and notified the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) and the Department of Health.

Michelle Patterson‑Witmer of Terracon said crews completed 20 test pits in the area planned for fields and found historic fill in 17 of them at depths between roughly 2½ and 7 feet. Analytical testing from six pits showed detections ranging from below DEC unrestricted soil cleanup objectives up to concentrations above restricted residential, commercial and in a few spots industrial objectives. "The analytical testing results did identify several compounds that do exceed the regulatory standards," she said, citing semi‑volatile organic compounds (PAHs) and metals including lead, mercury, chromium and arsenic.

District and consultant options fall into three broad paths. Presenters estimated full excavation and off‑site disposal could approach $14 million; a cut‑and‑grade approach that limits disturbance might cost more than $5 million in some scenarios; and a strategy that leaves most historic fill in place while building a cover system (the new field surface, localized clean soil, asphalt or concrete) and an underground chambered stormwater system to reduce disturbance was presented as a lower‑cost alternative, with examples cited around $3 million in some cases. Presenters cautioned that those figures are preliminary and will depend on the final site management plan and DEC direction.

Consultants described a site management plan framework that the DEC and the Department of Health typically require for impacted sites: protocols for excavation, on‑site staging, testing and decision rules for reuse versus disposal, worker protections, dust suppression and community air monitoring during disturbance. Patterson‑Witmer said work has been stopped on the site pending development and approval of the site management plan and DEC review.

District staff told neighbors the plan will be developed with DEC and Department of Health input and that forums and direct mail to adjacent streets are planned so neighbors can review findings and ask questions. The district committed that a neighborhood forum will occur before any contract modifications are finalized.

What happens next: the district said it will finalize a DEC‑responsive site management plan, return to the board with specific regulatory steps and a revised design proposal, and schedule neighborhood forums to review findings. No final construction or disposal decisions have been made.

Action items recorded in the meeting record included motions to approve routine agenda items and consent items; the board did not vote on soil remediation options at this meeting.