WESTFIELD – The comment period on converting the use of the Cross Street playground for use by the proposed elementary school, as a playground and subsoil storm water infiltration area concludes today.
The National Park Service, which oversees the use conversion of open and recreational space process, requires communities to seek comment from citizens, and then submit the comments and the community’s response to the Park Service for its review. As of Thursday only one Cross Street couple had submitted a comment under that requirement.
Mayor Daniel M. Knapik said this morning that the city will respond to that comment, and any submitted today, within the next two weeks. The City’s response team, Community Development Director Peter J. Miller Jr., City Planner Jay Vinskey and Law Department supervisor Susan Phillips will review the submissions and respond to “substantive” comments.
“Hopefully we can turn that around and submit the comments and the city’s responses next week or the week after that,” Knapik said.
Several Cross Street residents appealed the use of the Cross Street Playground, the home of the Westfield Little League for more than 60 years, as part of the site for construction of a $36 million elementary school, charging that the city was in violation of Executive Office of Environmental Affairs (EOEA) Article 97 land disposition policy.
Superior Court Judge Tina Page issued the temporary restraining order on Sept. 5, 2012 after a motion filed by residents of Ashley and Cross streets who contended that the city is violating state and federal law by using part of the Cross Street playground for the $36 million school project. The residents filed the suit earlier that year, charging that the city is violating Article 97 of the Massachusetts General Law which sets preservation protection for land.
Page ruled that the city had to seek the approval of the National Park service and a vote of the state Legislature, a two thirds vote of both the House and Senate with the provisions of Article 97. The Park Service approval is needed first before the city can seek legislative approval.
The city has argued that the Cross Street property was taken through tax title legal action and that the land was never formally designated by the City Council as park land, hence it is not protected under the provisions of Article 97.
Page rejected that argument in granting the resident’s petition by issuing the restraining order but the state Supreme Judicial Court (SJC) issued a ruling on March 15 that significantly narrows the application of Article 97.
Knapik said that the city is evaluating submitting a petition to Page to review her decision in light of the recent SJC petition which appears to support its contention that the land was not taken specifically for a playground and that use evolved informally.
“We’re still deciding what we’re going to do with an appeal based on the SJC decision, that we will seek a modification of (Page’s) order that would no longer require the Article 97 process,” Knapik said. “So we could start on the school as soon as we clear the Article 97 issue.”
Not only has the Article 97 appeal halted construction of the 96,000-square-foot school building, it has delayed the planned Columbia Greenway Rail Trail project, which was planned to be underway now and completed by June 30, extending the trail from just south of Tin Bridge, where the first phase ended, across Little River to East Silver Street. The state, through the EOEA, has approved a $2 million grant in the 2013 fiscal year budget, meaning the money must be committed or expended by June 30.
However, one effect of the Article 97 appeal is that it freezes all state and federal grant money for recreational and park facilities. The Columbia Greenway is identified in the grant as a linear park.
Knapik said that resolving the Article 97 issue with Judge Page will allow the EOEA to release the grant.
“The rail trail money is supposed to come loose when that (Article 97 resolution) happens,” Knapik said. “We have the rail trail bids and the contractors have a 90-day hold, so the goal is to resolve the issue and award that contract.”
