Appeals Court rejects Mattos school site challenge

Aug. 12—The state Appeals Court has rejected all of the arguments by a group of residents hoping to stop an already-underway elementary school project on part of Mattos Field in Gloucester.

The 11-page decision, released on Thursday, concluded that there was no error by Newburyport Superior Court Judge Thomas Drechsler in his decision to dismiss the lawsuit on summary judgment following a hearing last year.

The group of 14 residents, led by environmental activist Patti Amaral, had alleged that the city had violated an amendment to the state constitution, Article 97, that protects open space; that transferring the park to the Gloucester school department violated the public trust; that the plan to replace the Mattos Field space with open space on the site of East Gloucester Elementary was not valid because there would be too much of a delay; that the city failed to file environmental notifications with the state on time; and that the judge should have allowed the case to go to trial.

But one by one, the court rejected each argument.

The court held that the transfer was lawful and that lawmakers who voted on special legislation to approve the transfer fully understood the nature of the project.

The court said the argument that the transfer violated the public trust "has no merit," noting that the legal precedents cited by lawyers for the group were all cases that were decided before the state constitution was amended by Article 97.

The court also found that there is no legal precedent that bars a change in use for properties that are maintained with Community Preservation Act funds.

It found that the delay between the closure of part of Mattos Field and the re-use of East Gloucester Elementary as playing fields was not relevant because the law doesn't require that a swap be simultaneous. Mattos Field was named for a Gloucester man killed in World War I.

It also found that the city had filed an environmental notification with the state and that the state did not see the need for one; the court also noted that the Amaral's group failed to identify any actual environmental issues, only claimed procedural flaws.

The court also noted that the group raised several new theories in its appeal that were not presented to the judge during the 2021 hearing.

"In their opposition to summary judgment, the plaintiffs appear to have raised new theories under which these and other statutes were violated," the court wrote. "The judge understandably did not address any of these claims, given the dismissal of count three with the plaintiffs' assent. Under the circumstances, we deem these issues waived."

Amaral did not return a call seeking comment Thursday.

Courts reporter Julie Manganis can be reached at 978-338-2521, jmanganis@gloucestertimes.com or on Twitter at @SNJulieManganis