Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Mbta Vegetation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Conservation commission approves herbicide use, requires NOI for mechanical removal on commuter-rail right-of-way
Summary
After a lengthy debate over whether mechanical vegetation removal constitutes wetland alteration, the Bellingham Conservation Commission approved herbicide treatment under the applicant's Vegetation Management Plan and required a separate Notice of Intent for mechanical removal in resource areas.
The Bellingham Conservation Commission on Jan. 14 voted to approve herbicide application under the MBTA commuter-rail vegetation-management plan but left mechanical vegetation removal subject to separate permitting.
The hearing resumed after the applicant’s representative logged on to address last-minute changes. Matt Donovan, the applicant’s representative, told the commission the RDA covered both herbicide and mechanical treatments and described on-track application procedures and an environmental monitor riding with the applicator.
Commission members pressed how the town should treat mechanical brush-cutting and tree removals in wetlands. Commissioner James argued mechanical methods “are not allowed in their regulating regulations,” saying mechanical removal “is alteration of a resource area” and urged the commission to treat mechanical work as requiring an NOI. He cited language in guidance (a D concurrence letter) that, in his reading, limits the presumption of no-alteration to herbicide use carried out according to an approved Vegetation Management Plan or Yearly Operational Plan.
Donovan and other applicants’ representatives said the five-year plan is implemented across many municipalities and that some mechanical work (on-track brush cutting and occasional larger removals from on-track equipment) has long been part of right-of-way plans; he described best-management practices for debris handling and said an environmental monitor and applicator work from the truck to avoid drift.
After discussion of regulatory language and potential appeal paths, a commissioner moved to: issue a positive determination for delineation of wetland boundaries for the areas covered by herbicide application; treat herbicide application following the approved VMP/YOP as not altering wetlands; and require a filing (NOI) for any mechanical vegetation removal within jurisdictional resource areas. The motion was seconded and carried by roll call with one member not voting. The hearing was then closed.
Why it matters: The commission’s split approach permits chemical treatment under the submitted plan but keeps mechanical methods—brush cutting and possible on-track tree removal—subject to the stricter permitting and review path. The applicant may appeal the mechanical restriction, and commissioners flagged an outstanding adjudicatory case involving the applicant’s BMPs that could affect future decisions.
Next steps: The commission directed staff to issue the written determinations; the applicant requested a PDF of the signed determination as soon as it was available to preserve appeal timelines.
