Proposed disc-golf course in Ross up in the air
Opposition to a proposed disc-golf course for Evergreen Park could cost Ross more than $15,000 in state grant money.
About 50 residents who live near the 35-acre park on Evergreen Road cited negative environmental impact, a lack of parking, noise, vandalism, litter and the hazard of flying discs as reasons why they don't want the course near their homes. They spoke at a Thursday community meeting.
“We're retired, and we don't want to see the value of our home go down,” said Kitti Fenk, 67. She and her husband live within 30 feet of the park.
If township commissioners drop plans for the $31,000 golf course, they would have to return the $15,500 in grant money for the project, said Parks and Recreation Director Eloise Peet.
Several residents and disc-golf players attended the meeting and argued that the course would be well maintained.
Paul Harkins, 38, the Ross resident who proposed putting a course in the township, said disc golfers diligently maintain their own courses and that other courses are “spotless.”
“A lot of disc golfers are adamant about picking up trash,” he said.
Disc golf is similar to traditional golf, except that players use Frisbees or discs instead of balls.
The golf course was proposed in a 2012 Parks and Recreation plan and funded by a state grant from the Marcellus Legacy Fund, which the township received last year. The grant of $72,350 — which includes $15,500 for the course — will be matched by the township and will fund parking and trail improvements.
Kelsey Shea is a staff writer for Trib Total Media. She can be reached at 724-772-6353 or firstname.lastname@example.org.
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments â either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.