Town’s suit against Burrillville Planning Board over turf field moves forward, with intervention from resident coalition

BURRILLVILLE – A nonprofit made up of nearly a dozen resident activists has been granted permission to intervene in the town’s Superior Court appeal of the Burrillville Planning Board’s decision to reject a project for installation of an artificial turf field at Burrillville High School.

The “Burrillville Grassroots Coalition” submitted a motion to intervene in the lawsuit in June, noting its membership includes one or more abutters within a 200-foot radius of the project.

“The Coalition membership has property interests which it seeks to protect,” notes the filing. “The Coalition member and/or members, as owners of land abutting the proposed project, are threatened with special injury and are entitled to adequate representation of their interests.”

The motion, which was ultimately granted in a decision by Justice Jeffrey Lanphear, is a new twist in the legal battle over a controversial project that has divided town residents for more than a year. At its root is the ongoing dispute about whether or not trace amounts of PFAS – or per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances – potentially found in a synthetic turf surface could pose a risk to the town’s water supply, or the athletes who will ultimately use the field.

Supporters of the athletic complex plan contend that the project presents no threat to public health and have sought to prove as much with test results showing only trace chemicals in the surface that contractor FieldTurf Inc. intends to install in Burrillville. In a recent press release, Town Manager Michael Wood pointed to a study that found that the turf fields installed at two Northern California high schools found no detectable PFAS above state and EPA soil screening levels, with one showing none of the chemicals at all.

Opponents have questioned the adequacy of testing, noting standards for the chemicals are changing at both the state and national level, and have disputed the independence of consulting firms paid for by the town. Environmental advocates and others have argued that a grass field is a safer option for Burrillville, and said that the town needs to protect its water resources.

Bronco high school teams, meanwhile, are gearing up for another fall season without the needed athletic facilities, and with no end to the battle in sight. The project, which is set to include new lighting, a press box, an ADA-accessible viewing plaza, a six-foot-wide walking path and a 1,000-seat grandstand, was under construction last September when resident Roberta Lacey first filed the suit that brought work to a halt with a temporary restraining order.

In April, Associate Justice Melissa Darigan ultimately found that Lacey’s attorneys had failed to prove she stood to suffer irreparable harm from the project. Darigan agreed, however, that an application for the athletic improvements should have gone before the town’s Planning Board. The judge noted that the PFAS levels found in the turf were “orders of magnitude below” current EPA standards. She also acknowledged, however, an evolving understanding and regulation of the chemicals.

Planners would take up the town’s previously absent preliminary plan for the project that same month, but denied the application in a 5-2 vote at contentious meeting with a somewhat abrupt decision.

As a result, the official record on the ruling later filed by Planner Ray Goff lacked much of the information normally included in such documents, noting “none stated” in the area where findings of fact would typically be listed. Beneath, in a field where Goff must document actions taken by the planners, the filing notes, “Motion made by Bruce Ferreira on the basis that he is not comfortable with the turf field.”

That document would later become basis for the town’s court appeal.

The coalition has contended that Goff had bias in the filing, noting the planner previously served as an expert testifying in the town’s behalf during Lacey’s suit. For its part, the town objected to the group’s motion to intervene through attorneys from Anthony DeSisto Law Associates, who argued that Goff’s testimony is irrelevant to the current matter, and stated that the coalition had failed to prove their right to participate in the case.

Lanphear disagreed in a ruling that has now aligned the new Burrillville Grassroots Coalition in defense of the Planning Board’s decision. Represented by William Conley of Conley Law Associations, the board has denied many of the town’s claims in its appeal.

A non-profit made up of 11 directors, the coalition was formed in May with a mission to “protect, preserve and defend the natural beauty, rural character and environmental health of our community for current and future generations,” according to Articles of Incorporation filed with the Secretary of State.

“We are committed to championing transparency, fostering education and empowering residents to engage in decisions that impact the land, air, and water we all share,” notes the document filed with the Secretary of State. “Through grassroots actions, strategic advocacy, and community stewardship, we stand as guardians of a clean, healthy environment and a voice for the people.”

Directors of the coalition include Lacey as the registered agent, along with Samantha Young; Irene Watson; Chris Watson; Wayne Sloman; Pia Mueller; Gerald Giguere; Cynthia Lussier; Adam Schatz; Stephanie Sloman and Melissa Novicki. The coalition is represented by Desautel Browning Law, the same firm that represented Lacey in the previous litigation.