Montclair Board of Education took a big step forward in its plan to renovate and reorient the baseball field at Woodman Field Monday by cutting down trees. Some were more than 100 years old.
A group of residents who live near the field showed up in protest Monday, taking video and photos of the stately oak and hickory trees being cut down and sharing on social media. Some had signed a petition to try and save the trees.
“The district has the permits for the tree cutting and has no further comments at this time,” said Dr. Jonathan Ponds in a statement Monday to Montclair Local, referring to the previous stop work order at Woodman Field, part of the Aubrey Lewis Athletic Complex.
In October, Ponds, in an update to the community, said the district was able to mitigate the loss of all but 15 trees after redesigning the project and that new plan included planting 94 new trees.
Two groups — residents who wanted to save the trees, citing environmental concerns, and parents who want to save student athletes from dangerous field conditions — have been vocal at BOE meetings.
Removing the trees was needed to reorient the field to make it safe for athletes and prevent further injuries, according to parents familiar with the field.
“I don’t think anyone wants to see trees cut down unnecessarily,” said Jasmine Hodari, parent of a seventh grade baseball player. “The BOE and Dr. Ponds had to make a hard decision about player safety.”
Hodari described how dangerous the field can be.
“On this field, a player can run to catch a ball and hit the track, and then a metal grate, and then the turf of the football field,” said Hodari. Navigating these different surfaces puts players at risk for falls, because cleats get stuck and players can slip when they hit these different surfaces. It also creates bad hops, where the ball bounces up unpredictably.
Hodari said she has heard of players getting concussions or teeth knocked out after being hit by a baseball due to a bad hop.
Woodman Field is one of many renovation projects listed in the bond referendum passed last year; $7,940,000 was allocated to renovate the baseball field and replace the grass field with turf.
In addition to safety, turf would solve another issue at Woodman — games being postponed frequently due to poor field conditions. Sometimes, games are rescheduled to other area turf fields such as Glenfield [Editor’s note: Hodari is referring to her eight-year-old daughter’s baseball team who can play at Glenfield, a much smaller field not used for high school and middle school teams], but many times they just end up getting cancelled, Hodari said.
Along Champlain Terrace where the field is located, there are homes with yard signs calling for the towering trees to be saved.
Alison Sargent, a lifelong resident of Champlain Terrace who lives in a house that has been in her family for 70 years, had a clear view from her living room of those same trees being cut down Monday.
“I filed an OPRA request to get all the required documents but I’ve never received anything,” said Sargent. “We support and are all for a safer baseball field. All we asked for was a compromise, to work with the neighbors and save some of the trees.”
Sargent brought in licensed arborist John Linson in September to survey the trees.
“I surveyed 28 trees. One was dead and two were hollow,” said Linson, who added that the age of the trees ranged from 50-175 years; some trees were more than 200 years old. Regarding the environmental impact of removing the trees, Linson said it could potentially increase heating and cooling costs for the surrounding houses. The trees also acted as a buffer between the houses and the field.
Evan Cutler, an avid birder and vice president of the Montclair Bird Club, has been birding in the area for years. “There are 350 species of caterpillars that can live in these trees and they’re extremely important for the birds in this area,” said Cutler, as he pointed to a red tailed hawk circling above as the trees were being cut down. “Last week there were white throated sparrows, juncos and woodpeckers right here.”
Rich Ullman, a longtime resident and supporter of youth sports, recognizes that the image of a tree falling down is a powerful, emotional visual.
“I don’t like the idea of trees being cut down, but it’s an anomaly to have a track running through right field,” said Ullman, who added he was glad the Board of Education voted to approve the baseball field renovation. “You heard board members say ‘I love the trees, too, but we’ve got to do what we’ve been elected to do.'”
Ullman joined a group of families who sent this letter to Montclair town officials and the Board of Education, urging no delays in making playing fields safe for Montclair’s youth.
Ullman said making the field safer for both the baseball players and the track and field athletes is what the bond referendum was all about — addressing facilities that have been neglected for many years, both inside school buildings and those outside to support athletics and physical education.
“All along, this has been about doing what is best for the kids and their safety out on the playing field. The adults in the community have to make that the number-one priority.”
A giant thank you to Dr. Ponds and the BOE for listening patiently to both sides, for compromising where possible (reducing the field size to reduce the number of trees eliminated, and improving the number and type of trees to be planted), and for ultimately prioritizing the safety of our children.
As someone who cares deeply for the environment, I was conflicted by the proposed loss of these trees. I have been following this issue closely, and with a son on the baseball team, I have been pushing for a safe field. I know that trees are important for air quality, climate mitigation, and wildlife, as well as for the beauty and shade they provide the neighborhood, but the hard truth was that Woodman could not have a safe field without removing trees. It was very hard to see them come down yesterday, but I find solace envisioning the future of that landscape, one that is going to be planted with 94 new native trees, along with many other native shrubs. I really believe it is going to be a beautiful site and an example of how we don’t have to choose between humans and nature. We can design places where the two coexist.
No one likes cutting down trees, even if the number is small (and in this case reduced by sensible compromise). No one favors unsafe athletic fields. The BOE and Superintendent Ponds have done an admirable job in working through the complexities of the Woodman baseball field renovation. Because of the robust debate that has taken place, the current site plan balances environmental and community interests and the imperative to provide today’s children (and the thousands who will follow them) with a safe place to play a sport they love. I agree with damejones (above) that the site can be beautiful and full of life — a place all stakeholders, even those currently critical of the plan, can and will ultimately appreciate.
The baseball team should get a new field. What I don’t understand is why the District, Dr. Ponds and BOE are not following the state and local laws to get it built. If you are arguing for a safe field, you would want the safety rules and regulations followed. I would think the baseball parents who signed this petition and commented here would also agree. No? If there are delays, that rests on Dr Ponds and the BOE. Sounds like they think they’re above those rules or maybe don’t know the law.
A heartfelt thank you to Dr. Ponds and the BOE members that voted to move forward with the new baseball field. I hope they do the same with all the projects outlined in the referendum.
Every project approved and funded in the referendum is essential. The commitment and energy being demonstrated to execute these projects is gratifying and bodes very well for the future of the Montclair Public Schools.
@SafeFields Commitment and energy being demonstrated on behalf of whom? And at the expense of whom? Does every child in this District not deserve the affirmation that this property is free of lead and other possible contaminants? If a Deed Notice is on file with Essex County, it suggests there was a problem in the past. Do we ignore it in the hopes that the issue just resolved itself in time? Does lead just disappear over time? Is it a sign of commitment to simply ignore or wish away potential hazards where kids live and breathe? Or perhaps apathy is the new “energy” for which you give thanks? If only this BOE and/or superintendent would come out to the public they serve and explain on the record how it is they “are covered” and assure the community that they are truly safe. Our District’s silence is alarming, suspicious, and suggests negligence. If there is nothing to hide, why are they hiding? Come out, BOE! Talk to us! Tell us the soil is lead-free and show us the proof! With $8M, you should be able to afford a comprehensive test.
So grateful to Dr. Ponds and the Board of Ed for tirelessly working to come up with a plan that considered all concerns, as well as the budget. No one wants to see trees taken down – even if 6x the amount will be planted – but neither does anyone want to see a player risk broken teeth, torn ligaments, or worse, a cracked skull or concussion caused by unsafe playing conditions. As a school system and town, we can’t afford the cost or the time to continue to be a liability. Thank you for putting safety first.
@jolamathisen This level of cognitive dissonance is exhausting. If a regulation field was angled just slightly, the centerfield of 350 would not have required all of these trees come out. Did you every say, “Hey, can we look at that plan a little closer and think about the neighbors?” Why not? Not one of you ever said, “We need to care about these people who live alongside.” Yet *that* small opening of your hearts might have brought about a new and safe field plan that looked to serve “all concerns,” that would still have kept your boys safe, happy, proud. No one ever suggested the team *not* receive a ball field as soon as possible to avoid any injuries to the athletes. What the community asked for was that a field design take into account the needs of others. Your answer was NO.
Please, stop pouring salt in the wound by suggesting this was the only path forward. There was a path that cared for this entire community, and it was not chosen. Enjoy your “win” but know that your win means others lose every single day for years and years to come. Also, please read elsewhere about how 6x the number of trees does not replace the old-growth trees just removed, even if you simply consider 2.5 inches versus 54 inches in diameter and that it will take two generations for new trees to grow to that size. Educate yourself. And that 50 of those trees are arborvitae, which are what might be referred to as eco-nothings. For anyone who knows trees, they’re a joke. And this isn’t a matter of math, it’s a matter of worth. The baseball community showed us those on the outside of it are not worth your care or your concern. You have hurt people, deeply. Accept your role in that. And know it could have been different, and that your team would never have gone without the safe new field they deserve. Tell us, what lessons did the team learn through this? Block out the noise and think only of your own needs? See those sad people across the street, boys, look away, it’s easier that way when you get what you want with no regard for others.
And for the record, I am not a field neighbor, I am simply a community member who has watched this play out and been continuously shocked at the lack of concern shown for others, the disinterest in problem solving, the endless tunnel vision and total absence of empathy.
OK, the trees are down and we’ll now have an improved athletic complex. My question: Why are we locked out of it? To my knowledge, every nearby township–and the country parks too–allow free access to their athletic fields. Only in Montclair are the people who paid for the fields prevented from using them. It’s very nice of Glen Ride, Cedar Grove, and other townships to give us free access to their facilities, but we should be be able to use our own.
@Keith,
These are not Township fields. The Township doesn’t lock anyone out of any of our fields. OK?
The fields the public is prohibited from are owned by the Montclair Board of Education. They prohibit you for several reasons. Legal liability is not one of them. I don’t think they lock up their dirt & grass fields. You will no doubt note the adjacent playgrounds owned by the very same BoE are not locked up. It really is just the high school facilities. Not too far back, the Montclair varsity football team wouldn’t share its turf field with other teams.
As you well know, there was a divorce. Your recourse & the accountability is now at the elected BoE. The municipal government has nothing to do with the school district & their facilities. At least the BoE offers remote public comment, unlike our Council (I think they are still pissed about the part-time job description label and not offered medical coverage.)
Thank you for the clarification about who controls the fields. Since the Board of Education controls them, it should find a way to make them accessible.
Our public school facilities are not for the general public. Their turf playing fields are for the exclusive use of athletes…and athletic organizations that rent them for a token amount, have insurance, etc. As you have no doubt been following, the school district does the bare minimum maintenance, hence the choice of lower maintenance turf fields for the student athletes. The warranties are about 10 years with proper care and then we have to start thinking about replacing them (the Woodman football filed was $3MM). It was a big deal for the football team to start sharing its new replacement field. With more use, I can’t say what the impact is to the lifespan. The new Watchung turf field seems to be unlocked – and that has become a MHS field in all but name. I see families, dogs, etc using the field. Maybe try there if you are in the vicinity.
@Eye on the Ball in Mtc I’m sorry, when you say “your answer was no” – I think you’re referring to me and I have never answered no to whatever you’re referring to. And if you’ve attended all the meetings, you might have seen the size of the field has been taken down. And you know what, when my neighbors on one side cut down a half dozen trees and put in a 6 foot blue fence on the property line and the other neighbors put up a 7 or 8 foot retaining wall topped with a fence in the rear of my property, both dramatically changing the landscape of our yard, no one asked me. As I see it, I have two choices: roll with it or move.
@jolamathisen “Your” was intended as collective, not you individually. Never once did the baseball community open up to an alternative plan, which was prepared by an architect and handed to the District and talked about at all of the meetings. The centerfield was first presented as 385′ (but the architect mentioned that night 350′ being the regulation requirement and kept mum about the extra 35 feet in his plan, until weeks later). The current plan is 365′. If the angle of the field was shifted just a small amount and at 350′ (meeting regulation reqs the team deserves), most of the berm of trees could have been preserved. So, why would none of you consider it? Why would win-win not be a win you (plural) could feel good about? New safe field for your boys and trees for all. Dr. Ponds said something about some glare being a problem, but it’s the darnedest thing, mature tall trees are really good at shielding us from glare. They also keep us cool, absorb storm water, and host a world of wildlife that we depend on. But you, collective, said NO. Your boys are now all set to play on what is called an Urban Heat Island (open spaces with no shade in sight), and on plastic turf that will run 10-30 degrees hotter than grass. Health and safety for the win, though, right? This is science and sense, not a game. Or so we thought.
I’m sorry your neighbors changed the outlook for you at your home, that must have been hard and perhaps it still is. I’m disappointed this personal experience didn’t allow you to empathize with the neighbors of Woodman Field and move you to take their concerns and needs into account. Your voice would have been meaningful. Did not one member of the baseball communiity ever say, “Let’s see what we can do here to take care of each other?” We live in one community, our schools are tucked inside our neighborhoods. To make decisions as if no one beyond the perimeter matters is an affront.
I understand that the site plan for the baseball field at Woodman is subject to the Zoning ordinance. I look forward to this plan being reviewed by those who are independent of school/BOE and sports club politics. I see from reading the section on site plan review that there is solid guidance with regard to landscaping at a site. In particular I note the following point: “Every possible consideration shall be given and every possible measure taken in the interest of retaining all standing live trees with special emphasis on trees in excess of six inches diameter breast height (d.b.h.). All dead or diseased trees shall be removed.”
The Montclair Public Schools District moved forward with the destruction of 15 (possibly more from visual observations) mature Oaks despite not having had their site plan reviewed or approved by the Zoning board.
I can only hope that tree replacement plans will be amended to account for the loss of what by my count, and John Linson’s arborist report, adds up to over 23,000 sq feet of tree canopy, and a combined lost diameter of 413 inches from 15 mature trees with a diameter of between 13 and 54 inches each. A staggering loss of healthy Oak trees.
For reference: If Montclair’s tree ordinance had been updated like nearby Madison’s recently has, the appropriate replacement for the trees we lost on Monday would be 132 deciduous native trees of 2.5 caliber each. The District’s current plan calls for 24 decorative trees and 20 shade trees. I don’t count the 50 arborvitaes or shrubs and I’m not sure any replacement plan in any town would.
I certainly hope that the families of baseball players will join us in advocating for an replacement plan that acknowledges and truly attempts to mitigate against the tremendous impact this has had already to the surrounding neighborhood and to our collective environment. I also hope they can get past their dislike for my advocacy and truly investigate the data with regards to artificial turf for both chemical/toxic exposures, heat risks, climate impact, microplastic pollution, PFAs pollution, and musculoskeletal injuries, specifically concussions. The data does not appear to point to synthetic turf as a safer surface. To say that it’s a healthy surface is not science based.
Strong Simpsons “Do you want to know the terrifying truth, or do you want to see me sock a few dingers?” vibes from some of the comments!
Eye On The Ball – Great insight re: 350 versus 365/385. And think of the scholarships being deprived due to fewer home runs on the stat sheet!