Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Pesticide Regulation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Hopkinton sustainable-green group objects to DPW pesticide plan; cites 333 CMR 14
Summary
Don Sutherland, chair of the Hopkinton Sustainable Green Committee environmental working group, urged the School Committee to note opposition to a Department of Public Works plan to apply herbicides on town right-of-way and raised concerns about protections for children under regulation 333 CMR 14.
Don Sutherland, chair of the environmental working group at the Hopkinton Sustainable Green Committee, used the School Committee public‑comment period on Jan. 9, 2025, to alert the committee that the town Department of Public Works plans to seek approval to apply herbicides on town right‑of‑way.
Sutherland said his group had reviewed the DPW’s "vegetation management plan" and that members disagree with the application as proposed. He referenced state regulation 333 CMR 14, which he described as protecting children and families from harmful pesticides and said the DPW application “is not in keeping with the safeguarding of children and families as it's being administered in the town.”
Sutherland asked the committee to note the working group’s opposition. He identified himself as living at 205 Winder Street and said the objection reflects his committee’s review of DPW materials and interviews with DPW staff.
What was said and what it means Sutherland told the committee: “The DPW is applying for a, application to apply pesticides onto the town grounds that they determine as right of way…we don't think it's in keeping with the existing laws as protecting children and families, and that law is 333cmr14.” He asked the committee to be aware of the issue and recorded that the working group opposes the DPW application.
No formal committee action on the pesticide matter was recorded during this meeting. Chair Nancy thanked Sutherland for his comment and the meeting proceeded into the scheduled agenda.
Authorities and follow up Sutherland explicitly cited 333 CMR 14 in his remarks; the committee did not take public action during the session. The working group indicated it had reviewed DPW materials and interviewed DPW staff; the school committee did not provide a formal response at the meeting. Further public or committee action would require a separate agenda item or a referral to town DPW or public‑health staff.
Ending Sutherland closed by saying the working group is in opposition to the DPW application and thanking the committee for listening. The committee moved on to the scheduled budget presentation without additional comment or vote on the matter.
