The largest school district in Vermont moved forward on Tuesday night with a controversial $5.7-million artificial turf field project in Hinesburg despite opposition from residents who warned that the endeavor poses environmental and human health risks.
The Champlain Valley School District board voted 8-3 to have superintendent Adam Bunting negotiate an agreement with the nonprofit group promising to raise money for a new field complex at the Champlain Valley Union High School campus in Hinesburg.
The group, the Community Field Project, has been pushing for more than a year to build a turf field, bleachers and lights on the site of a grass field that is often too soggy for the school’s soccer, football and lacrosse teams to use.
Project proponents, lead by Charlotte businessman Eli Lesser-Goldsmith, argue that a new synthetic field is needed to increase playability during wet weather and improve the experience of spectators.
“This project will inspire people to come together as a community with their friends and neighbors for amazing events for people of all ages for generations to come,” Lesser-Goldsmith said at Tuesday’s meeting.
But the proposal has sparked bitter backlash from Hinesburg residents worried about everything from groundwater contamination to an increase in sports injuries to how the lights might affect wildlife. In the past two decades, town residents have twice voted down publicly funded efforts to install a turf field at the high school.
The project still faces an array of regulatory approvals, including a stop at the Hinesburg Development Review Board. Opponents vowed to continue fighting there and in court, if necessary.
“How is it that you are debating putting two acres of plastics and crushed tires on a pristine piece of land in this beautiful town for a third time?” John Penoyar, who’s lived in Hinesburg for four decades, asked at Tuesday’s meeting.
The new group’s version differs in several ways, most notably the pledge by Lesser-Goldsmith, the CEO of Healthy Living market, to pay for the entire cost through private donations. But that has sown additional mistrust among opponents who worry the “gift” is giving project backers undue influence over the plans.
The turf would eventually need to be replaced at an estimated $700,000 cost, something opponents have raised as a potential burden. Supporters, though, say field rentals could offset the costs.
“There is no such thing as a free lunch,” Penoyar warned board members during the contentious meeting in the high school’s library.
At one point, opponent Jennifer Decker unfurled a 30-foot-long scroll she said contained the names of more than 900 people who signed petitions against the project.
The contamination concern has been particularly acute because Hinesburg has a history of groundwater contamination. Leachate from a former landfill and leaking underground gasoline tanks have polluted town water sources in the past.
A town well located just 4,000 feet downhill from the high school became the focal point of the debate. The school is located within a zone providing special development restrictions meant to protect the well from contamination.
Many artificial turf fields contain PFAS, or per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances, often referred to as “forever chemicals” because of their durability. Residents worry that those toxic chemicals might show up in the Hinesburg field.
The class of 14,000 chemicals developed for their stain and water resistance has become a major human health concern because of their toxicity and ability to build up in the environment and the human body.
Lesser-Goldsmith has repeatedly claimed the field would be “100 percent PFAS-free” but has offered no evidence. Rep. Angela Arsenault (D-Williston) testified that such a claim was “virtually impossible.”
Fears that the chemicals would leach out of the field and into surrounding wells caused the district to commission a study of that risk. A 91-page report by two Burlington environmental engineering firms, Waite-Heindel Environmental Management and Sanborn Head, largely downplayed any such risk.
The report concluded that the clay and silt soils would likely prevent contaminated runoff from penetrating area wells. The field’s distance from the well and upward groundwater pressure also make contamination unlikely, the report said.
But Chandler Noyes, a hydrogeologist who worked on the report, acknowledged that turf fields do degrade over time based on the amount of use and weather impacts. In the process, PFAS could leach off the field, and microplastics would also likely be flushed off the field by stormwater.
But Noyes said the clay soil and stormwater catchment system would likely catch the chemicals and particles before they reached surrounding wells.
That wasn’t good enough for critics, who were prevented from questioning Noyes. The board retired to executive session to deliberate before publicly voting to direct Bunting to sign a memorandum of understanding with Lesser-Goldsmith’s group.
That document has not been publicly released, but Bunting said it will be once it is signed.
The secrecy surrounding the agreement has been a bone of contention among opponents. Board chair Meghan Metzler said the MOU was no different than any other contract the district negotiates, such as an employment agreement.
“At this point there is no gift for the board to accept,” she said. “The funds need to be raised, and the gift, which is a field, needs to be constructed.”
Got something to say?
Send a letter to the editor and we'll publish your feedback in print!
