Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Airport Land And Environment topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Commission advised to phase tree-clearing work after DCR flags Article 97 parcels
Summary
Commissioners heard that several parcels near Runway 36 may be protected under Massachusetts Article 97, which would require alternatives analyses and replacement land; the commission agreed to approach MassDOT and FAA about phasing work to prioritize Runway 18 and to approve the vegetation-management scope pending agency input.
Presenter (S5) told the commission that the airport layout plan has been uploaded to the Federal Aviation Administration for review and that, after FAA comments are addressed, related tree‑clearing and fencing work could be closed out under federal environmental rules.
S5 said a recent meeting with the Department of Conservation and Recreation (DCR) flagged at least one parcel near the Runway 36 end as subject to Article 97 — the Massachusetts constitutional protection for certain conservation and recreational lands — and that additional parcels around the runway look questionable. He summarized the consequences reported by DCR’s representative: “Any change to Article 97 land constitutes what they call a disposition,” requiring an alternatives analysis, identification and purchase of replacement land of equal or greater acreage and at least 110% of the lost parcel’s value, plus legislative authorization and resource‑compensation fees. S5 warned this process can be lengthy, citing an example that has taken more than a year elsewhere in the state.
Because the Runway 18 end parcels do not appear to fall under Article 97, S5 proposed phasing the project to complete work on the 18 end first while deferring Runway 36 easement work until ownership and Article 97 status are clarified. Commissioners discussed timing, potential additional costs from delay, and tradeoffs of a phased approach; S6 supported moving forward on a clear, primary approach at 18, and S1 cautioned that delaying work could raise costs. S5 said he would prepare a cost estimate for the 18‑end work and continue homework on which 36‑end parcels truly trigger Article 97 requirements.
On the vegetation management plan, S5 reviewed the contract scope prepared with environmental consultant GZA. He said MassDOT had signaled that elements categorized as planning or airspace updates (including Part 77 airspace drawings) are likely to be funded at about an 80% state / 20% airport split rather than 100% state funding, while safety‑category work could be fully funded. S5 identified a specific wetlands task (referred to in the scope as task X) as possibly reduced or removed by MassDOT and asked the commission to approve the GZA scope of services pending MassDOT’s final input. “We can approach the DOT and ask if they would accept just the analysis as part of the overall project,” S5 said, and he proposed authorizing the chair or Isabelle to approve any final changes after MassDOT’s response.
Commissioners agreed to proceed step‑by‑step and to authorize staff to contact MassDOT and FAA for guidance and timing estimates. S5 will report back with cost breakdowns and clarified parcel status before any easement negotiations or property owner outreach begin.
