Judge taking turf field under advisement

It’ll be some time before a judge rules in the controversial synthetic turf field lawsuit.

Attorneys from both sides of the bitter dispute over the Martha’s Vineyard Regional High School proposed field were before a judge Friday morning in Massachusetts Land Court.

Judge Kevin Smith said after arguments were made that he will take the matter under advisement before issuing a ruling.

Friday’s partial summary judgment was held over Zoom.

The Vineyard school district filed the lawsuit last year, after the Oak Bluffs planning board rejected the proposed synthetic turf project.

While there was no ruling from the judge on Friday, there was an indication of how the case could be resolved. If Judge Smith were to take the side of the school district, he could potentially send a ruling back to the planning board. 

But the case could also go to trial, or the judge could simply rule in favor of the planning board.

On Friday, school district attorney Brian Winner argued that the planning board didn’t have the authority to rule on the case based on groundwater concerns. He used the Dover Amendment to make his case. The amendment is a state law that allows properties with an educational component to bypass zoning bylaws for building projects that would typically require town permits.

Winner argued that the board decisions should come down to zoning issues like setbacks, building heights, parking lot sizes. For the Dover Amendment, there isn’t a settled law that looks at groundwater. For municipal governments — like the Oak Bluffs planning board — were to create their own standards for Dover, that would complicate and create confusion for projects that are going before local review boards.

“When a proponent of a project is undergoing work, they know what the guardrails are,” Winner said. “If there were to be a situation where they were reduced or diminished or confusion in that area, that would be very disruptive to all the parties involved … The guardrails would be so blurred, it would be difficult to interpret.”

He also noted that out of the hundreds of Dover cases have been argued before the courts, not one of them addressed the issue of open space and the protection of groundwater. He said that their argument is a “novel one” and potentially a precedent setter.

Winner also said that the school district hasn’t ignored the potential hazard from PFAS and microplastics. Quite the opposite, he said. But he said there are other ways to protect groundwater, like through the local health board or through the Martha’s Vineyard Commission. 

Judge Smith pushed back on Winner’s argument, saying that the law might not be “as restrictive as you are arguing.” The judge cited other Dover case law where municipalities overruled on projects regarding public health issues.

During the planning board’s time before the judge, attorney Michael Goldsmith argued that the case came down to the overlay district. The school committee’s proposed field falls partially onto a piece of land that is meant to protect the town’s drinking water. He said that much of the school’s property is outside of the resource area, but the school committee didn’t choose to place the field there.

“They didn’t have to put the field right in the overlay district,” he said. “They chose to plunk it right here in the aquifer resource area.”

Goldsmith argued that the planning board did extensive research into the issue before making a ruling, and wasn’t “parodying” existing law. To say that the board couldn’t rule on potential toxins getting into the resource area “is an awful stretch and a leap.”

Goldsmith used the example of using materials if the school committee had proposed a grass field. The planning board would have put a condition on the project that would not allow the use of fertilizers that might include a carcinogenic substance. “We wouldn’t be here if that were the case,” he said.

For the synthetic turf, he said that the board found there was no significant condition they could put on the project that would protect the town’s aquifer.

Goldsmith argued that zoning law is meant to protect public health. He said that’s complicated with the Dover Amendment, but the town should still be able to protect its resources.

Judge Smith, following the arguments, said he would take the issue under advisement before issuing a ruling.