Present: Larry Pilchman, Geoffrey Vitt, John Chamberlin,
Kathy.Parsonnet, Buff Mclaughry, Peter Krass, Barry Harwick,
Paul Campagna, John Aubin, Wayne Gersen, Jonathon Brush,
Hilary Pridgen, Mary Danko, Jill Polli, Mike Jackson.
Minutes of last meeting: Approved
The following discussion took place.
Community Partnerships
The process for developing community partnerships for enhancing
the Norwich property was debated. For now an aggressive,
proactive approach will not be taken; instead, the committee
will talk with groups that come to the committee on their
own accord. A number of groups have done so. The
reasoning is that the committee must first determine what
its needs are on the property for developing fields, before
pursuing other uses. It was pointed out that any such
projects unrelated to athletic fields would not be part of
the committee’s plan; in other words, the tax-payers
would not be asked to support them.
Robin Nuse, Hanover Little League, presented the league’s
position on fields. Robin stated that arranging enough
field time for the league is difficult and they would be
very pleased to have the opportunity to play on a quality
field in Norwich. She also said that Little League
would be prepared to assist in fundraising to help build
a softball/little league field. The committee felt
that this should be considered for the future, but first,
Dresden’s immediate needs have to be addressed.
Communication/PR
The subcommittee continues to make presentations to various
community groups, including the Norwich Recreation Board
and upcoming presentations to the Hanover Select Board, the
HHS neighborhood, and Dresden students. Feedback has
been very positive. Informational flyers are being distributed
and a public meeting is being planned to review several plans
options and solicit feedback.
Norwich Fields Site
Buff Mclaughry reported that he had marked the property
line with pink and orange flags/paint so that anyone interested
in walking the property could get a sense of the boundary
lines. Once the options for the HHS site are better
developed and cost estimates made, plans for the Norwich
site will move forward.
HHS Site
Barry Harwich reported on the HHS subcommittee’s work,
which included 3 initial options for reconfiguring and renovating
the fields, as well as reasons for keeping the track on campus
(see attachments I & II below).
Reconfiguring the HHS fields was discussed. Jonathan
Brush confirmed that putting a more traditional sized soccer
field inside the track is viable. At a meeting with
Pathways, he also learned that the track can’t be positioned
as close to the HS as first thought, because there has to
be an access road for trucks bringing in supplies for the
wood chipper and for emergency vehicles.
The merits of a synthetic turf field were discussed; however,
there are still questions to be answered. For example,
the committee feels it must better determine what the increased
usage would be over a grass field. A comprehensive
list of pros and cons must be developed. Also, sod/grass
should continue to be investigated to see what advances have
been made in this area.
Discussion turned to soil quality at the HHS site. Wayne
Gersen said there is a potential soil problem, which would
mean higher site preparation costs. More testing needs
to be done.
Hilary Pridgen suggested that the turf field be a separate
item for the bond vote, or that the voters be given two options
to vote on: one with turf, one without. For legal
and other reasons, the consensus of the committee is that
this type of bond format will not work.
Costing Out Options
Wayne Gersen said that the committee should bring fairly
reliable dollar figures to the table when the plan is presented
to the Dresden board on June 21; however, they did not have
to be hard numbers. It was agreed that in coming up
with the costs, the committee should not rely on Pathways’ previous
estimates alone. It was agreed that a meeting between
John Aubin, Jonathan Brush, and committee members familiar
with costing out the options should happen soon to generate
numbers. Preliminary cost estimates would help guide
the committee’s thinking, especially the Norwich Site
subcommittee.
Next committee meeting is June 6, 2005.
Attachments – May 12 Minutes
I. Preliminary Options for
HHS
Option 1: Status Quo
The configuration will remain as is; however, the soccer
field, football field, field hockey field, and track will
be renovated. Sod and/or grass will be used.
Pros: Simplest engineering and design work.
Cons: Does little to upgrade facilities and does
not help solve field shortage issues.
Option 2: Status Quo Plus New Grass Field
There is the possibility of building a new grass field on
land owned by Dresden below the existing field hockey field
- by the ropes course on the way to Thompson Terrace.
Pros: Again, relatively easy engineering and design
work. Adds a new field that is close to HHS. Helps
to solve field shortage problem.
Cons: This would be a difficult area to build in
and there are wetlands and other environmental concerns. Ropes
course would be affected.
Option 3: Reconfiguration and Installation
of Synthetic Turf Field
This option involves two major components, which include
expanding the size of the field hockey field and “flip-flopping” the
football and soccer/lacrosse fields.
Raise the existing field hockey field approximately ten
feet using fill, which will create a playing space large
enough for any sport. Install a synthetic turf field
that has lines configured for multiple sports, including,
for example, field hockey, football, lacrosse, and soccer. Install
lights to maximize usage.
"Flip-flop" and renovate existing football
and soccer fields, which will allow for a more traditional
sized soccer field (the existing one is undersized) while
still allowing for a standard sized football field (which
requires less space). Build a new track around the
new soccer field.
Pros: Turf field with lights will increase field
availability and usage dramatically and therefore allow for
less fields construction in Norwich. New fields for
other sports will be much improved and create a safer and
more competitive venue.
Cons: More costly than options 1 and 2.
II. Rationale for keeping track and
field area at Lebanon Street Site (5-11-05)
1. One of the goals of the committee, as reported in the
survey results, is to have as many team games and practices
kept at the high school. (The track and field program uses
the same field area for both practices and games.)
2. Another goal of the committee, again as reported in the
survey results, was to encourage shared facilities. Keeping
the track at the high school site will allow access to the
facility by the community in much greater numbers than if
moved to Norwich. During the summer months, it would also
be used by the recreation dept. for a youth track program.
3. If the track was moved to Norwich, some kind of storage
facility would need to be created as well. The sport is both
track and field, and the implements used (shot put, discus,
javelins, etc.) are not something that is easy for students
to transport on a daily basis. There would also need to be
a way to secure other equipment (hurdles, jumping pits, etc.)
in the more isolated Norwich site. Finally, track and field
competitions can go on for several hours. Not having a place
for athletes to gather in inclement weather, and having very
limited bathroom facilities; would be far less than ideal.
Different track events take different amounts of time and
the entire team is often not on the same schedule. This would
create a lot of transportation problems for students going
back and forth to another site.
4. The cross-country team also uses the track, both for
practices and for part of their home course.
5. Other Hanover teams often use the track as part of their
conditioning program; again, having it close to the high
school is ideal.
6. Hanover has a PE program thru the ninth grade. The current
PE program does not utilize the track but future teachers
may well want that opportunity.
