The MVRHS athletic field - Daniel Greenman, MV Times

Updated, Jan. 8

Plans to tear down the bleachers, sports lighting, and scoreboard on the Martha’s Vineyard Regional High School’s varsity athletic field are underway, as school representatives have filed an application for a demolition permit.

In the filings, which were submitted to the Oak Bluffs building department on Dec. 22, Island schools Superintendent Richie Smith says the proposed demolition is in preparation for upcoming improvements to the athletic facilities.

In addition to the high school’s plans to construct a new synthetic turf athletic field, the project will also include a new 400m running track, bleachers, a press box, and sports lighting.

The estimated value of the existing structure slated to be torn down, according to the permit application, is $140,000; the school estimates that the demolition process will cost around $75,000.

There is no date set on when the demolition will occur, as the high school has yet to raise the funding needed to move forward.

The filing of the demolition permit caught some Oak Bluffs and school officials by surprise, but members of the school committee say they have the legal right to move forward with the project, despite ongoing litigation.

“The school committee has never taken a vote to stop,” said school committee member Michael Watts. “With the court’s recent ruling, we have to do something to go forward.”

The Martha’s Vineyard Commission originally approved the high school project in 2021, but it’s been delayed due to ongoing litigation in Massachusetts Land Court, where the regional high school was appealing the Oak Bluffs planning board’s May 2022 decision to deny a special permit for the project construction. Oak Bluffs planning board members had cited concerns over per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS).

But in his Nov. 22 ruling, Land Court Judge Kevin T. Smith found that the planning board had acted beyond its authority when denying the proposed high school field project, and ordered an annulment of the planning board’s denial — giving MVRHS the freedom to continue its project.

In August, the high school was also granted an extension of the project’s approval by the Martha’s Vineyard Commission. The initial approval of the high school’s project was to be extended until 60 days after the lawsuit with the town’s planning board reached resolution — either after the judge’s ruling and the expiration of any appeal period, or following the stipulation of dismissal with the court.

The school district’s application for a demolition permit was submitted to the town of Oak Bluffs just two days after the town’s planning board filed its counter-appeal in land court, and the same day the MVRHS School Committee met in executive session after the planning board filed the appeal.

After reconvening from an executive session at that Dec. 22 meeting, MVRHS committee chair Kathryn Shertzer commented on the litigation: “Regardless of the planning board’s notice to appeal … we are enthusiastically moving forward, supported by the land court’s decision, protected by the Dover Amendment,” she said.

Planning board chair Ewell Hopkins, learning that the school had filed the demolition permit, questioned if the request might be premature. He specifically questioned if the school had the finances to complete the field project once the existing facilities are demolished.

“When someone submits an application, we are looking at the feasibility and viability for an applicant to complete the project. We don’t like open holes,” Hopkins said, adding that it’s ultimately up to the town’s building inspector to sign off on the demolition permit, not the planning board. He questioned if the school had the money to complete the project; Hopkins said that the last time the school committee was before the board, they had not raised the money yet for the project.

The planning board chair also questioned if the school would be considering the larger high school building renovation or complete rebuild project, which is currently in the early planning stages. The school has been accepted into the Massachusetts School Building Authority process, which could fund a significant portion of the project. “Is the larger redesign of the school informing this decision, or are they separate and distinct?” Hopkins questioned.

“I’m very surprised, to the point of shock, that they are going forward with those two outstanding points,” he told The Times.

School committee member Watts, in a comment to The Times, said that the school had not raised the money, and could therefore not move forward with the project. He said that the MVC’s approval requires that private funding be used to complete the project, and the school has not raised that money yet. 

According to Superintendent Smith, the costs and work associated with the demolition are considered part of the larger school building renovation.

School officials say that in 2019, the project was estimated to cost about $12 million.

But despite not having the funding, Watts said it was important that the school starts to move forward after so many delays.

“Because [the demolition permit] is filed, we have put a clock on,” he added. “Some clock has to start. If we do nothing forever, no clock is ever going to start. And we have a failing track.”

According to the demolition filing, the school plans on reusing much of the razed material at one of the other Island schools. The rest will be stored by MVRHS for use at a later date.

“We understand that a building permit application will be required for the reinstallation of these structures, and intend to fully comply with the building, plumbing, and electrical codes at that time,” the filings state; it adds that “as this is a public project and the MVYPS has already spent over $40,000 on testing and review fees with the MVC[,] we respectfully request a waiver.”

The extent to which the appeal will affect the school committee’s proposed construction plans, Smith said, is unknown, but “certainly it has an influence on our ability to fully move forward,” he said. 

The demolition permit filing does raise issues of transparency; the filing was not shared with the high school administration. 

“I was never consulted or made aware of the demo permit that was submitted to the O.B. building department,” reads a letter obtained by The Times from high school Principal Sara Dingledy to school staff. “If I was involved/consulted, I would have shared that information with you.”

Dingledy further stated that she is curious to know how staff feel about the issue, collectively and individually, and will make space to discuss the topic. 

The superintendent says he understands people’s concerns surrounding the project, and shared an acknowledgment that school officials could work on being more straightforward with the public, particularly regarding plans for the turf field.

“I think we can be more transparent internally as a school system and school committee, [and] I think we can be more transparent externally with the rest of the community,” Smith told The Times in a recent interview. “All of us could be more transparent; [the committee] is truly trying to do so.” 

At the same time, Smith noted the litigation and most recent appeal by the planning board puts the school district in “uncharted territory.”

Regarding pushback from some of the public on the project’s process, “there’s this notion that there’s something diabolical going on,” Smith said. “We’re educators … We’re just trying to move something forward for the sake of a project for the kids.”

The extent in which the appeal will affect the school committee’s construction plans, Smith says, is unknown, but “certainly it has an influence on our ability to fully move forward.”

The school district will need to return to the Martha’s Vineyard Commission for approval to extend the time period in which the field project can commence. 

Oak Bluffs building department officials have not yet responded to The Times’ inquiry on whether the demolition permit is likely to be granted.

Daniel Greenman contributed to this report.

41 replies on “Plans filed for high school athletic field demolition”

  1. I hope they get bids. There is a lot of scrap aluminum there. Should be able to get some too do the labor for nothing if they get to keep the aluminum

  2. They still have a lawsuit, health board votes, and a new full review by the MVC in front of them and they are dismantling the varsity athletic fields? They are years away for an approval for these fields. What are they thinking?

    1. John, the lawsuit ended (actually it was an appeal not lawsuit). The planning board’s denial was vacated by the judge, thus telling the school to move forward if they wish. The MVC gave a 60 day extension, post ruling, to get started. So now they have made the first step necessary. Lastly, they haven’t started dismantling anything, these are permits needed to do so. Again, following process and procedure.

      1. From the MV Times, 8/11/2023 “In the event the land court judge rules in favor of the high school, the commission will then take up potential regional impacts of a two-year extension; that application will likely involve a public hearing.”

  4. Does the planning board chair ask every applicant how they will pay for their project? Is that part of the review process? OB you need to get this person in check before he costs you more money.

    Wish I could post his nice picture he has on Facebook with his field fund tshirt and lightening bolts. Indeed he gave a fair and balanced review. Ummmmm?

  5. When did the MV Times last question any building department about the likelyhood of a building permit being issued. This feels like the paper is trying to intimidate the building inspector. Wouldn’t the correct question be does the MVRHS have the legal right to file for a demolition permit

  6. Bravo!!!! Mr. Hopkins seems like he doesn’t like that the school is following the advice of their lawyer, and the law, unlike what he did by ignoring his lawyer, twice, and now a judge. Spending thousands of tax payer dollars. And he wants to continue doing more of the same. How much more proof do you need to be convinced that he a bias individual who has his own agenda. Now will the select board stop the money train for Mr. Hopkins? I’m done paying for his personal agenda. The MVC said to the school, “You need to start this project as soon as you get a ruling from the court.” The school is doing exactly what they should do because Mr. Watts is correct, the track is failing fast. What is best for our kids is to get started.

    1. Wrong. The MVC has stated the school must come back in front of it for review after all the court actions are done. They had two years to start construction and that window closed last summer.

      1. Even if they go back to the MVC, it doesn’t stop them from getting permits. Past MVC practices, i.e. Stop and Shop legal battle, it should, and likely will, be extended unless the likes of Ewell Hopkins have joined the board. Even Ben Robinson said in the MVC meeting it’s really just a formality, and he was an opponent of the project.

  7. Safe drinking water on an island with one aquifer OR risking this precious resource by installing a plastic playing field for high school sports?

    Please take a look at the latest Environmental Protection Agency report from 12/23.

    https://www.epa.gov/newsreleases/epa-releases-annual-report-showing-steady-progress-protect-communities-pfas-pollution

    New regulations to be finalized soon in 2024.

    Wouldn’t it be foolish to push ahead on a plastic field only to be forced to remove it because of water quality issues in a few years?

    Perhaps the community could join together on one thing. Protecting our precious drinking water is more important than having a pretty plastic field like they do off-island. Remember, your children’s health, and future generations, are counting on you to make the right choice.

    1. The water quality argument is total BS. There is an actual automotive junkyard smack dab in the middle of the water protection overlay district and nobody showed any concerns until it recently burst into flames. But a virtually PFAS free turf installation is proposed and the sky is falling and we’re all going to get cancer and die. Read the reports regarding water quality risk that were done at the behest of the MVC on this project, and stop the fearmongering.

    2. Hi Ed

      Please look at the testing the MVC had done, TetraTech stated that the levels of PFAS were
      de-minimis and the turf field posed no risk to the islands aquifer. Please follow the science not irrational fears being spread by opponents to the project.

    3. Ed, I read a report last year listing all the potential contributors of PFAS to the environment. It was detailed and written by an environmental group and guess what, synthetic turf fields were not only not on the list but they weren’t even mentioned. So, if an environmental agency doesn’t list turf fields as a cause of PFAS contamination and those who oppose the field haven’t found any either. You know why, they don’t exist. Not one scientific study has been produced that “THIS” field will be a danger to the aquifer, but, there have been dozens stating that septic systems absolutely do contribute PFAS to the aquifer but we continue to allow them to be installed don’t we? They are what are contaminating the aquifer and I bet yours is one of them, as well as everyone else’s on the island.

    4. It’s INSANITY. We are living in the age of insanity. A total disconnect from the notion of protecting the Natural World. Homo Insanitis seems hell-bent on destroying the planet.
      Common sense is not so common anymore.

  8. They should move the bleachers to South Beach so we all can have a seat and watch the next storm take out the rest of the dunes and allow a good view of the waves crashing into the Atlantic Avenue houses. Top row would give a good view of the Windmills’ construction in between the storms.

  9. Mr Jones
    The MVC spent thousands of dollars of testing the field products for PFAS. Their conclusion was there is no danger to the water supply from the field. Please follow the science not the irrational fears being spread.

  10. Thank you Mr Davis and Mr Donahue. I very much appreciate your feedback and points of view.

    I would like to contribute to the discussion about plastic turf toxic chemical testing. I attach a link relevant to this. It seems as if the “testing” in question very much depends on which tests are used and what chemicals are tested for. PFAS and “forever chemicals” are ONLY ONE TYPE of many chemicals of concern. Heavy metals used in manufacturing the plastic (Mercury, etc) may be present. It is not clear, however, if Mercury and other toxic metals are released. Meaning “not certain” NOT “none are released”. The jury is still out. Please take a look. It left me with more questions than answers. https://ceh.org/yourhealth/everything-you-need-to-know-about-artificial-turf/

    My understanding is that the plastic fields also need maintenance. Including adding more plastic periodically. And I’ve read about periodic treatments and spraying with chemicals to keep the plastic turf fresh and protected. I would like to know more and welcome your help in providing information on this. I am concerned.

    I have also read that the plastic turf only lasts 8-10 years. What then? Dig it up and send it off island to a landfill? It can be recycled as well. So there seems to be a larger environmental footprint to plastic grass than many chemicals with the potential to leak into our fresh drinking water. I welcome your input on this topic as well. I hope to learn from your perspectives.

    For me, the trade off remains clear. Many unanswered questions about the safety of plastic turf (still many studies and EPA guidance pending) versus the absolute need to do everything possible to protect the only source of drinking water we have. And the larger environmental impact of plastic oil manufactured playing fields.

    I look forward to learning more from your perspectives. We, as a community, need to choose wisely.

    1. Ed, this is in no way a derogatory comment towards you but it seems like you’re just coming into this discussion. So let’s see if I can help. 1. The testing done tested for heavy metals and they came back clean, that’s why it hasn’t been part of the discussion. 2. Per the MVC ruling the only chemical that can be used on the turf is alcohol for cleaning, if needed. 3. The testing done to try to even elicit PFAS was so caustic that it’d have to rain Drano to release what de minimus levels there may be. 4. There is a guarantee in place that this field, when done after 12-15 years, not 8-10, will be 100% recycled. It’s built to be recycled. 5. The turf comes with a maintenance groomer, that’s all the maintenance needed. 6. There will be a fine mesh filter installed to prevent any micro-plastics from filtering through the field. 7. Not all turf fields are the same, this one will have a safety padding installed, organic pine infill, and a mesh system that insures recycling. All of this is on record at the MVC. No spray chemicals are used. UV light is natures way of disinfecting, and there’s plenty of that. I hope this has helped you to understand that this project is the most vetted project ever to go through the MVC. You should be more concerned with the building materials used in housing, and the chemicals used in clothing that contain PFAS that come to this island that don’t get the testing that the field materials in this field have received.

    2. Perhaps, as I suggested previously, you might consider reviewing the materials presented to the MVC. I have attached a link to the DRI file for your ease of reference. There you will find answers to your questions, including an exhaustive laboratory analysis of the proposed materials (which includes testing for heavy metals), a maintenance plan for the project, and pages of expert testimony to assist you in your analyses. What you will not find, however, are any data presented by opponents of the project that would conclusively demonstrate that there is a risk of contamination to the aquifer from the actual materials proposed in the project plan.

      https://www.mvcommission.org/dri/summary/352/55888

    3. Mr Jones
      Please go to the MVC web page and look at the testing information. This was the most scrutinized project ever by the MVC. There is no plastic added after the field is installed.
      When the turf has worn out it is replaced and the old turf is recycled. Please look at the test results, TetraTech states that the possible affect to the islands aquifer is de-minimus.

    4. Mr. Jones- thank you for being open to the discussion. I’d like to address your point about plastics being added to a synthetic surface for maintenance. I’ve been a college and high school athleti director for over 25 years. It is true that fields with a synthetic in-fill system (eg crushed rubber) require additional material over the lifespan of the field. The field design at MVRHS has a natural infill of cork and coconut husks (possibly incorrect on this, but I know it’s natural infill). Whatever ever material, it should be added over time, but it will be natural.

    1. Hi Albert
      Yes irrational unless you don’t believe in science. Both TetraTech & Horsley & Witten have done EXTENSIVE testing of the turf product and stated that there is no issue with the turf affecting the aquifer.

  13. This article is irresponsible. No one consulted anyone AT the highschool, no one asked the principal if she endorsed this, this is a preliminary action based on the results of the litigation. Totally irresponsible article with very little but conjecture on intentions.

  14. So where do children play when you rip up the field?bus them some place??walking across street to field seems ideal?and there are bathrooms inside and out!School committee must be busy little plan makers!! Just to share
    10-12 students who run, have been running in state forest thru airport for years!

    2. Patricia, I am not sure if you are being sarcastic or if these are real questions. There is a plan in place to minimize the affect on the student-athlete. Schools do this all the time.
      Currently, the school uses porta potties on the fields, that won’t likely change until the field house it built and then there will be bathrooms on the field. I am not sure about your 10-12 student comment but it sounds like you are referring to the cross country team. The school has both indoor and outdoor track teams who need a track to practice and compete. Lastly, if you think the track is only used by students, you’d be misinformed. You can go by the track on any given day and people from the general public are using it constantly. So this is truly and community project.

  15. Protect our water, make it available to our students children. High School students protect your future Stop this process and save the island community. Any threats to our water need to be stopped instead of Fire, Ready, Aim.
    Our educators and School Board need to stop thinking of just the present but thinking of our future.

  17. Some posters on this site always respond with ”feelings” rather than facts. Opinions are fair game. One can ”feel” that the Palestinians are persecuted and you would be wrong but it is ok to ‘feel’ this as it is ok to ‘feel’ that Biden is great and ‘feel’ that Kamala is worthy. But you shouldnt ‘feel’ that PFAS in the turf are harmful if the facts show different.

    1. andy– you might feel differently about the
      Palestinians if you were one. Bad enough that
      you feel Christians are being persecuted.
      And poor tiny donnie .— boo freakin who.
      But I agree that there is little to no
      danger to the aquifer from PFAS

      But I KNOW there are many other harmful
      reasons to reject it.
      Microplastics,
      Higher injury rates
      likely higher cost
      Creating 500,000 pounds
      of unrecyclable plastic trash
      filthy field conditions
      destruction of habitat for
      microbes, insects, annelida,
      araneae and thousands of other
      creatures you couldn’t care less
      about. Just to start…

      1. Please read the history of the area. Bernard Lewis is a good start. Palestinians are an invented people. They came from the former Transjordan and from Egypt and Syria and other places in the middle east. Jews were called Palestinians before 1948. You the science guy obsessed with facts—those are facts.

        1. No racism there ,right , andy?
          I know a fact when I see one.
          I know a racist when I read their writings.
          I was accused many times of being an anti semite
          for just expressing some compassion for the
          murders of thousands of innocent people
          on both sides of the Gaza war.
          I certainly hope Sam can let this one pass.
          If I can publically be accused of hating Jews
          because I feel compassion, I should be able to
          publicly accuse you of being an islamophobe
          for calling a whole race and culture “invented”
          and claiming there are “no innocent Palestinians”

    2. What are the facts?
      What is the science?
      How can we tell?
      Who is telling the truth?
      How can we tell?
      Look to out Party Leadership for the answers?
      Be loyal.
      Do we need a strong leader to take control and tell us what to do?

    1. andy– I follow the science–i have not seen any
      evidence to suggest PFAS are a problem here .
      I can accept the science. Can you accept the
      science about anything? On issue after issue,
      you deny facts, evidence and verifiable data
      in deference to your radical religiously and politically
      motivated ideology. But thank you for acknowledging
      a rational person accepting some facts. You should
      try accepting reality sometime—It’s not all that hard.

Comments are closed.