High school will go to court against the Oak Bluffs planning board over decision to deny artificial turf plan for athletic fields.
Mark Alan Lovewell

High School Will Appeal Oak Bluffs Turf Denial

A sharply divided Martha’s Vineyard Regional High School district committee voted 5-4 Monday night to appeal the Oak Bluffs planning board’s denial of an athletic fields overhaul at the school that includes artifical turf.

A sharply divided Martha’s Vineyard Regional High School district committee voted 5-4 Monday night to appeal the Oak Bluffs planning board’s denial of an athletic fields overhaul at the school that includes artifical turf — further prolonging an issue that has bitterly divided the Island community for years, and sparking new controversy over the decision to spend taxpayer money on litigation.

“Let’s go back to the town, go to the courts and get this straightened out,” said committee member Louis Paciello of Edgartown, who voted for the appeal.

The project won approval from the Martha’s Vineyard Commission last summer after exhaustive review, but early this month the town planning board put the brakes on the plan, denying a special permit out of concern over the effects of PFAS chemicals in the town water resource protection area.

At the meeting Monday, Mr. Paciello said parents he’s spoken with have indicated overwhelming support for an appeal.

“They can’t believe something that is approved by the MVC can get stopped by the town of Oak Bluffs,” said Mr. Paciello, who has two children involved in sports at the high school.

Kimberly Kirk, the other Edgartown member on the high school committee, also voted for the appeal, calling the planning board’s 2-2 vote on May 4 “not really a decision . . . It’s a statutory defect at this point in time.”

Both the committee’s Oak Bluffs representatives — Kris O’Brien and Kathryn Shertzer — supported taking the legal action against their town.

“I have to listen to the science that was provided to the MVC,” Ms. O’Brien said.

The Tisbury delegation split, with Mike Watts voting in favor and committee chairman Amy Houghton opposed.

“I think that to put more money and more time into appealing the project is only hurting the kids,” said Ms. Houghton, who supported changing the artificial turf to natural grass in order to resubmit the project to the planning board. “There is no guarantee that this appeal process will take a short time, [and] the amount of divisiveness in our community is something that weighs heavily on many people,” Ms. Houghton said.

The three up-Island members also argued that an appeal would sow even more dissension in the community. “Taking this to the next level and having us go legally at town bodies seems to me to be an increasingly divisive act, and I’m very concerned about that,” said Robert Lionette, who represents Chilmark.

Skipper Manter of West Tisbury concurred. “I think would just be detrimental . . . to slap Oak Bluffs in the face with a lawsuit,” Mr. Manter said. “I think we’d be making a terrible political and financial mistake.”

Aquinnah member Roxane Ackerman likewise voted against the appeal.

“We have grass fields that deliver championship teams, and nobody can tell me that we aren’t doing well by those kids,” Ms. Ackerman said.

Monday’s vote came after the committee returned from more than an hour in executive session with attorney Peter Sumners, who provided recommendations for lawyers to handle the appeal, which must be filed by June 3.

On a second, identical 5-4 vote, the committee authorized Ms. O’Brien and Ms. Kirk to negotiate a contract with land use and planning law attorney Mark Bobrowski, of Blatman, Bobrowski, Haverty & Silverstein in Concord, as special counsel for the case for $375 an hour.

Mr. Sumners told the committee that his “educated guess” was that the appeal would likely require a minimum of 40 hours of Mr. Bobrowski’s work and perhaps as many as 80 hours, though he cautioned that litigation can be unpredictable.

“It’s always difficult . . . there’s no formula you can plug into,” Mr. Sumners said. “It’s more art than science.”

The committee also moved to pay Mr. Bobrowski out of the high school’s legal budget, which finance manager Suzanne Cioffi said has spent a total of $38,752.12 so far this year.

The athletic fields project, which has been in the works since 2015, has spent or committed nearly $493,000 to date, school system treasurer Mark Friedman said.

Meanwhile, the Oak Bluffs board of health joined the fray this week, meeting to review a draft two-year townwide ban on artificial turf that has been under discussion since late last year. The board has asked town counsel Michael Goldsmith to review the draft.

The online school committee meeting Monday saw procedural disagreement, with members debating at length at the outset whether to go into executive session for the purpose of discussing possible litigation. After an hour behind closed doors, committee members reconvened in public for more debate and the vote.

Members of the public also spoke.

“I think it is divisive and I hope the school committee does not go ahead,” Scarlet Johnson said.

Taking the opposite view, John Packer said legal action is necessary after the planning board overruled the MVC.

“Very bad precedent. We need to appeal,” Mr. Packer said.

Comments

Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Tue, 05/24/2022 - 05:18

Permalink

Gail OB

And they should for heavens sake!!! This is a slam dunk… no more fertilizer water runoff!!

Danny OB

Just tons and tons of plastic grass, what happens to the turf at the end of its use? How much energy was consumed in the making of the turf? Who's going to offset the carbon emissions?

Bob OB

Danny,
Ever wonder what is in our roads (asphalt) we drive on every day??? look into that.... far worse than astro turf... Fertilizers/runoff is far worse than turf...

Stefan Vineyard Haven

Bob from OB. There are 5 total fields, 4 are already going to be grass so, one more grass field is not going to tip the scales. Just because we have committed countless environmental disasters in the way we live on earth does not justify more of then. Let build the fields now so the kids don't have to wait for the adults to sort out our ego issues.

Katherine Scott Tisbury

Bob, I agree that asphalt roads are an environmental disaster.
I am not aware of an alternative at the current time, although I might be wrong about this.
In light of that fact, your comment is irrelevant whataboutism.

Because there is a viable, and actually better, alternative to wasteful, prodigal, toxic plastic fields with a life span of ca. 8 years.

The willingness of the school to go to court for the right to pollute the Vineyard and materially risk higher injury rates for the athletes themselves suggests that we need new people in those positions.

Stefan Vineyard Haven

This is false a narrative and gaslighting. Nutrients added intelligently are sequestered by the field grass and soil. If the United States switched its agriculture to Regenerative we would be carbon neutral and country.

Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Tue, 05/24/2022 - 06:44

Permalink

Susan Desmarais Oak Bluffs

I do NOT want my tax dollars spent on this appeal. Respect the science and Planning Board decision, get the kids their grass fields.
Does anyone note that the taxpayers of OB will be asked to partially fund suing themselves? Just plain stupid.

Bob Edgartown

What is stupid is after the MVC did an exhaustive work and search on this whole issue to have the planning board throw a monkey pox on this is a shame. As far as science all depends on which science you want to believe. There are consequences to these boards making decisions based on feelings. Maybe they can get a trial date piggyback on top of the Martha’s Vineyard Commission appeal for their feeling-based verdict which goes to court next month.

Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Tue, 05/24/2022 - 08:12

Permalink

John edgartown

I can't believe the school committee members have the audacity to sue the planning board over this. this is a disgrace. get on with the grass and be done with it. this is not a professional stadium. and I do not want my taxes going to sue the town after they made a reasonable and fair decision

James Edgartown

“Get on with the grass” is what they have been doing for 60+ years and look where it has gotten us. If you haven’t been to a new HS complex in a while I suggest you do. You will see fields of synthetic. You may even be shocked to see all the synthetic baseball fields in New England now.
Why? The synthetic is safer, more environmentally sensitive (no water or fertilizer needed), easier to maintain and allows your grass fields to flourish. These are facts. Go out and see them and talk to the users, schools, towns people and see the difference they have made in their communities.

Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Tue, 05/24/2022 - 10:16

Permalink

Geraldine Brooks West Tisbury

Have we gone nuts? Suing each other with our own money to get a toxic surface that we’ll all have to pay more money to dispose of after bits of plastic and PFAS have drifed across the island?
Meanwhile the classrooms are falling down around our kids’ ears.

James Edgartown

Can you please provide proof the synthetic field is toxic? I read the reports on the testing that the MVC had done and everything came back “de minimus” I would love to know where your data comes from

Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Tue, 05/24/2022 - 10:21

Permalink

Rational Person Oak Bluffs

There's seems to be the misperception that the MVC is the supreme ruling body on the island. It is not. Town boards cannot be less restrictive than the MVC but have the right to be more restrictive regarding a MVC decision.

Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Tue, 05/24/2022 - 11:17

Permalink

Jose Oak Bluffs

I just wish that we would have had an equally robust debate about "following the science" when the topic was the pandemic where there was often, and unfortunately, no room for debate or dissension and where opinions were often stated as if they had the force of established and proven facts. Perhaps we should rephrase to following the "political science."

Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Tue, 05/24/2022 - 20:29

Permalink

Michael Chilmark

Turf is the way to go…glad the HS will appeal this…
You don’t have to fertilizer or water turf…

Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Wed, 05/25/2022 - 06:02

Permalink

Laurie OB

I agree we need to appeal this decision. Turf is safe. Fertilizer and run off is far worse than turf.

Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Wed, 05/25/2022 - 07:46

Permalink

Rachel Edgartown

I don’t like all the fertilizer as well… I know from personal experience working with fertilizers with my Dad who was a landscaper…..
Turf is safe and environmentally friendly…
I wish we could all get along..
God bless all the Families in Texas today… we have nothing to gripe about.

Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Wed, 05/25/2022 - 21:54

Permalink

Down Islander

Im gonna throw in my 2 cents, even though I have no horse in this race. First, there are pros and cons to each option. Natural grass would always be my first choice. However, given the climate and use regime, and my observations of the dismal maintenance of the HS sports facilities over the last 30 years, I'm not confident that there is the will or talent to do what's necessary to keep natural grass robust and healthy, even with copious amounts of fertilizer and water. (Incidentally, what happens in the summer when OB has a drought-induced watering ban?) I'm also not a fan of synthetic turf. Let's assume for a moment that the studies by the MVC are correct and that only a "de minimis" amount of plastic chemical will leach from the turf and will not even reach the aquifer. My concerns are more practical - disposal and replacement cost. Who's going to pay for that? I admittedly have not read the studies, so I'm not going to pretend to know which of the warring parties is correct about the science. I also have a daughter who played on both grass and synthetic turf in college sports. She absolutely preferred the grass and suffered multiple skin infections from abrasions from the synthetic turf. So you see, here is the dilemma. Neither of the two alternatives will produce zero impact to the environment, and both surfaces can produce sports injuries. What is absolutely the nuttiest thing about this whole fiasco is the half a million dollars spent on this. And the thousands more in legal fees that will be spent suing the host town because the school committee didn't get their way. And to what end? A non-perfect solution either way. And meanwhile the student athletes have gotten the shaft for the last almost 8 years while nothing is done.

Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Thu, 05/26/2022 - 17:35

Permalink

desertislander Phoenix

No artificial turf and yet the article on the great ponds says about 25% of the nitrates come from a fertilizer. Don't see any way to win.

Islander61 OB

The win is turf. It has been proven it will be safe by actual science, not speculation or fear mongering. Installation of the turf will actually be better for the environment by removing the heavy metals and PFAS that are already in the soil. Again, this is on record at the MVC, I just continue to point out what the opposition doesn't want you to hear. The 25% nitrogen from fertilizer that are in our ponds is from actual scientific study, the same science that indicated that the turf field is safe but bias against the project has gotten in the way of actual science.

Add new comment

Plain text

  • No HTML tags allowed.
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.
  • Web page addresses and email addresses turn into links automatically.