Questions Asked, Concerns Raised at Middle School Fields Forum

Vernal pools, blue-spotted salamanders, runoff, noise and educational sacrifice were on the minds of the many residents who attended this week’s public hearing regarding proposed leaching and athletic fields at Wayland Middle School.

Town Administrator Fred Turkington opened the forum letting attendees know that the purpose was to collect the questions and concerns of residents so that those issues could be addressed in the field analysis to be conducted soon.

At the April town meeting, voters passed, as part of the FY '12 capital budget, spending $75,000 in field analysis for proposed new athletic fields at WMS. That study, as per an approved amendment to the article, was expanded to include looking at the feasibility of a leaching field under the proposed athletic fields.

The variety of concerns raised at the hearing ranged from questioning whether that particular space was the best option for new fields to questioning whether new athletic fields are needed at all.

A previous Gale Report indicated that Wayland’s current athletic fields are overused and most are in poor to fair condition, Wayland resident Carol Kaplan pointed out. She questioned, however, whether adding two new fields would serve the purpose of improving the use or maintenance of the existing fields.

“How has the Recreation Commission evaluated the Gale Report,” she asked, adding that from her reading it seemed “wasteful to build more fields.”

Recreation Department Director Nancy McShea pointed out that the town maintains its current fields according to best practices, but that the amount of use demanded of each field means they are not properly rested during peak-use seasons.

“It’s not a lack of maintenance on the fields that’s causing them to be poorly maintained,” McShea explained. “We do all the best practices. They are poorly maintained because we can’t rest them.”

Anthony Christakis spoke up and expressed concerns about the size and scope of the fields, saying that perhaps one field instead of the proposed two would be more appropriate.

“I don’t think anyone is opposed to more fields in the town, but the size and scope …” Christakis said, wondering aloud whether the project is a “proverbial case of a square peg in a round hole.”

Other individuals had concerns not about the fields themselves but about their location and the impact they would have on the surrounding areas.

In particular, Sheila Carel had concerns about the environmental impact on the land and the possibility of disturbing the habitat of endangered blue-spotted salamanders, which are notoriously difficult to document, but are likely in the area.

“[I recommend] as you do these studies that money be put forward for a wetland scientist … to come in,” Carel said, adding that she believed there was also a significant number of American elm trees, a species she said was all-but-wiped-out by disease. "It would be a shame to take them," she said.

When it comes to the proposed leaching field at the site, numerous neighbors expressed fears that the field could cause septic runoff or general flooding on their surrounding properties.

The money appropriated at town meeting is only sufficient to study the area, not to develop either the leaching or athletic fields. Turkington said the upcoming study will look at both uses for the land, as required by the article passed at town meeting, but the fields will not automatically be packaged together for development when it comes time to make that decision.