WESTFIELD – A group of neighbors suing the city over the demolition of the former Ashley Street School and Cross Street Playground are continuing efforts to prevent the building of a new school at the site.
Led by Thomas and Daniel Smith, the group sent a letter last month to the Executive Office of Energy and Environmental Affairs (EOEEA) Secretary Richard K. Sullivan, Jr. with their thoughts on a Massachusetts Environmental Protection Agency (MEPA) study they said was conducted after the fact.
“That should be done a year before the project starts,” Thomas Smith said. “It wasn’t started until we got a court order for the project to be stopped.”
The city was notified Friday that the EOEEA determined that the city will not be required to submit an environmental impact report for the use of 1.37 acres of the 5.32 acre Cross Street playground in the Ashley Street school project.
Philip Griffiths, EOEEA undersecretary, notified the city after assessment of the Environmental Notification Form (ENF) submitted by the city for the $36 million school construction project.
The city ENF submission includes a proposal to replace the 1.37 acreage lost at Cross Street with acquisition of 33 acres off Main Street.
“Last August, the city’s first attempt to transfer the land needed to build the school was to transfer 1.37 acres,” said Smith. ” This act was to take the Cross Street Playground out of the Park and Recreation Department’s oversight and transfer the oversight to the School Department. The project manager, Paul Kneedler, recommended that the City Council transfer the entire 5.32 acres of the playground to the School Department. On August 18, 2011, that’s just what they did.
“They have changed the entire use of the playground from public recreational open space to the School Dept. use. According to Article 97, any change of land control or physical alterations for a use other than public recreational open space, constitutes a land transfer and therefore triggers Article 97 law.”
Smith said Knapik’s assertion that they are only transferring 1.37 acres of the Cross Street Playground is not true.
“Judge Tina Page recognized that play in the courtroom. City lawyer Bill O’Grady even admitted that the entire playground was Article 97 land – not just the 1.37 acres,” Smith said.
The letter sent by the Smith brothers and other residents of the Cross Street area reminded the EOEEA that the area is a designated Environmental Justice Neighborhood and a MEPA study is required in such a neighborhood.
Smith said Saturday that there is a threshold that, once reached, triggers the need for an environmental study. He said there are several triggers.
“Article 97 triggered the threshold for a MEPA review,” Smith said. “Another trigger is that the playground is right in the middle of an Environmental Justice neighborhood.”
According to Smith, another trigger is when more than five trees must be cut in order to widen a road or perform any transportation related project.
“They cut down a lot of trees,” Smith said.
The letter outlined the following: “The Cross St. Playground, the only public open space park within the entire E.J. neighborhood and central to the conservation efforts of the Secretary and the Patrick-Murray Administration, has already been stripped of its street and park trees, topsoil, grass, Little League baseball structures, and children’s playground equipment. The Cross St. Playground is also protected open space in perpetuity under Article 97 of the Constitution of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. This park is also under control of the National Parks Service, as it was a recipient of a Land and Water Conservation Fund grant.”
Smith maintains that according to MEPA regulations, the community in an Environmental Justice neighnborhood must be included in discussions.
“There was never any such meeting,” Smith said. “The neighborhood was not included in this environmental project at all.”
“However, we believe the Cross St. Playground has been converted by the City of Westfield to an inconsistent use, and an Environmental Justice Population has not been given notice, nor the slightest opportunity to express its concerns about the construction of the school and demolition of protected open space, trees, and views within our old and congested neighborhood,” states the neighbors.
Smith said he also believes there is a conflict of interest with the project because Sullivan was a member of the school building committee and his brother is a member as well. Another brother is a member of the Westfield City Council, said Smith.
Sullivan has recused himself from talking about Article 97 and the project.
Despite the concerns of the neighborhood group, the EOEEA has determined the project can continue without an impact study.
“The project does not require any state agency permits to complete the land transfer,” Griffiths stated in the notification, adding that the Massachusetts Environmental Protection Agency “jurisdiction is limited to only the 1.37 acres of land to be conveyed, and not the entire school site.”
Griffiths said that the replacement land “will allow for many recreational opportunities not available at the Cross Street playground site. The plan for this 33 acres parcel is to have recreational uses, including baseball and soccer fields, walking trails, river access, and community gardening.”
“I find that the proposed conveyance will comply with the EEA’s Article 97 Land Disposition Policy,” Griffiths said. Based ion the review of the ENF and the comments received, and in consultation with state agencies, I have determined that no further MEPA review is required at this time.”
Mayor Daniel M. Knapik said that Griffiths’ findings “support the city’s position that it has the legitimate right to build a school on city property, that we can lawfully go forward because the replication has been agreed to. Projects have been done before the swaps are done. We did that for Paper Mill School.”
Smith said the group is also continuing to fight it “because we have reasons to fight.”
To read the MEPA decision, click here.
