In light of ongoing litigation, the Martha’s Vineyard Commission’s land use planning subcommittee (LUPC) has voted in favor of extending the approval of the high school’s field project.
The recommendation comes just weeks shy of the deadline for the Martha’s Vineyard Regional High School (MVRHS) to begin construction of its new athletic field.
The project had been approved 10-6 by the regional planning agency in June 2021, before the written decision was filed with the county on August 27, 2021.
But a subsequent failure to receive the greenlight from local regulators, who cited concerns over per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) found in synthetic turf, prompted the MVRHS committee to file an appeal against Oak Bluffs and its planning board’s rejection of the project.
Martha’s Vineyard Regional School District vs. the Town of Oak Bluffs Planning Board is currently ongoing in Massachusetts Land Court, and has yet to be resolved.
As a result, the high school has been unable to break ground.
But per the commission’s 2021 decision, the high school “shall have two years from the date of the decision of the [MVC] to begin substantial construction”; after that the project’s approval expires.
On Monday, the LUPC was tasked with reviewing a request by school representatives to extend the approval, and to make that recommendation to the full commission, who will be convening on the matter Thursday.
But because of the Land Court case, “we don’t know what’s going to happen,” commissioner Doug Sederholm said at Monday’s subcommittee meeting.
“If the high school wins, then the high school would be in a position to get its special permit and proceed with [the field] construction,” he said. But, “If the town wins that case, that’s the end of it.”
In the event that the Land Court judge rules in favor of the town’s planning board, upholding the denial of the field project, the MVC’s development of regional impact (DRI) 2021 approval becomes irrelevant.
Sederholm said that in the meantime, the commission ought to avoid addressing the merits of whether or not anything has changed since the field’s approval two years ago, in terms of facts or the science related to PFAS and synthetic turf, “until we know whether or not that is necessary.”
Rather, he suggested that the commission extend the project’s approval until after the litigation with the town is resolved.
That would give the high school the opportunity to come back to the commission and seek a two-year extension, if their appeal is supported in court.
On behalf of the school district, “we appreciate that strategy,” Martha’s Vineyard Public School Superintendent Richie Smith said Monday.
The LUPC ultimately agreed, in unanimous vote, to recommend an extension until 60 days after the litigation is resolved.
This is the first time the regional planning agency has considered third-party litigation as a factor in a DRI review.
In response to an inquiry by Commissioner Jay Grossman, regarding whether the LUPC’s recommendation is “in compliance with past practices of the commission,” Sederholm, who is an Island attorney as well as commissioner, called it “sui generis.”
“We have never had a situation like this,” he said.
Sederholm stated that he couldn’t recall a situation whereby new information, like scientific discovery or updated state/federal regulations “might change the benefits and detriments equation” of an already approved project.
Referred to as “the elephant in the room” are new Environmental Protection Agency regulations that limit the maximum contaminant levels for PFAS compounds, Sederholm said.
He noted that at the time of the high school’s field project approval in 2021, the EPA did not have any limit; similarly, Massachusetts limits for PFAS were significantly higher than they are now, just two years later.
While those new regulations may not “directly apply” to the MVRHS project, they “are of relevance,” Sederholm said.
No!! I don’t want the water table poisoned for a couple of football games! It is beyond questionable!
It will be poisoned because people told you so and you believe it, or you read the reports requested by the commission and came to a conclusion from the actual analytical data?
I am guessing it is the first. Just a guess. A product of a campaign of fear. Have you seen the existing soil sample analysis? That should scare you. Do you know what your septic is pumping into the ground? That should scare you. The fear mongers don’t want to talk about those things. Each single household likely produces more toxic material introduction into the ground over the aquifer annually than this proposed field would produce in its usable lifespan. Pretty sure the commission and OB board of health and planning board don’t want and won’t get that data. The wastewater facilities already know they have a problem. Nobody wants to talk about it.
….and I’m sure you can provide proof of your claim. Because in the hours of testimony, the thousands of pages provided to the MVC and Planning Board, and the thousands of dollars spent on testing there is not one shred of actual evidence that the field will “poison” anything. In all of the opposition’s testimony and research they have not been able to produce one study that says that the materials used in “this” field will harm anything. So once again, please stop the theatrics and follow the facts on this project, don’t compare firefighting foam, or crumb rubber, or cleaning products, because none of those things are relevant in this project, because they aren’t being used. Follow the science, I believe I’ve heard that before.
Patrick– so this field in never going to be cleaned ?
If it isn’t , it could became pretty disgusting in a few years, don’t ‘cha think ?
So, let’s assume it actually will be cleaned every few weeks or months.
I actually think cleaning products are relevant to this discussion
What are they going to use to clean it ?
Simple un biased question.
Don, the only cleaning solution needed in case of a biohazard is alcohol. See MVC hearing notes. There is no chemical cleaner used.
Patty– I am 100% adamantly opposed to this crazy idea. BUT– there really is no evidence
that this field will leach poisons into our aquifer– at least not PFAS.
I think that the opposition actually hurts their cause by continually perpetrating this particular falsehood.
There are many other reasons to oppose this foolish idea. We should focus on them–
Higher injury rates
end of life recycling –(not gonna happen)
unsanitary substances (spit ,bird poop, racoon poop, skunk poop etc) on the field that are not being broken down and “disposed” of by billions of beneficial insects each day.
Hazardous cleaning agents that might actually pollute our aquifer
Microplastic deterioration and contamination of the land, eventually getting into the ocean
overall costs
And the fact that if you put 500,000 pounds of plastic on more than an acre of our island’s limited land it will make it as lifeless as a parking lot. If and when it is concluded that this is as dumb of an idea as I think it is, it will be very time consuming and expensive to bring it back to it’s natural state.
But thank you for caring, and posting– we need to be vocal.
I have been on this island for 37 years. This is the most embarrassing and dumbest idea I have ever seen here.
Please continue to publicly oppose this.
Thanks
No!! I don’t want the water table poisoned by GMO grass seed, chemical fertilizer, chemical herbicides, chemical pesticides or emissions from turf maintenance equipment.
Does the pee and poop from your septic system go into the water table?