Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Invasive Management Restoration topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Historic‑site restoration at 72 Main Street turns into a larger invasive‑management plan after unpermitted tree removals
Summary
Townsend commissioners heard a detailed restoration and stewardship plan for 72 Main Street and the adjacent rail-trail areas, learned that 18 stumps were removed (five outside commission jurisdiction), and were told the Historic Society and partners will file a comprehensive NOI for invasive removal, plantings and other work; commissioners emphasized documentation, property-owner permissions and disposal methods for invasives.
Representatives of the Townsend Historic Society presented a draft ecological restoration and stewardship plan for 72 Main Street on June 24 and told the Conservation Commission they intend to file a comprehensive Notice of Intent covering invasive-species removal, native plantings, trail improvements and septic work.
Frank McFarland (Dillis & Roy), speaking for the applicant team, said a field inventory identified 18 stumps removed from the 0.32-acre property; five of those stumps are outside the commission’s jurisdiction. The presentation described a set of management areas (A1, A2, B1/B2) and identified A1 as a priority area for this summer because recent canopy removals increased sunlight and could accelerate invasive growth.
“We identified 18 stumps on or around the property that had been removed,” McFarland said, and noted he would submit either a single NOI covering the full program or a phased series of filings so work could proceed without creating a confusing set of file numbers.
Commissioners pressed the team on a number of specifics: whether removed boards would be pre-primed and painted after installation, how lead paint scraping would be contained, disposal of invasive material, volunteers’ role and supervision, permission from other landowners (including rail-trail stewards and MBTA where applicable), and whether stump grinding near the water would be allowed. The applicant said removal would be done by licensed contractors where required, that volunteer events were planned for community education, and that disposal options under consideration included drying biomass and controlled winter burning in appropriate cases (excluding poison ivy).
Commissioners repeatedly urged clear documentation: confirm which stumps lie outside jurisdiction (stump numbers 5, 9, 10, 11 and 12 were noted), include stump‑treatment and disposal procedures in the NOI, secure written permission from property owners (including Greenways or MBTA where relevant), and list any chemical or mechanical control methods to be used.
Several commissioners and members of the public expressed frustration that some trees/stumps had already been removed before commission review. Commissioners said the forthcoming NOI should explicitly address the unpermitted removals so the commission and the public can review impacts and proposed remediation. The applicant said he would aim to file materials in time for a hearing in late summer or early fall to avoid losing the growing season.
The commission also discussed long‑term stewardship options, including scheduled maintenance periods and, over time, prescribed fire as one potential tool, noting such actions would require specific permitting and careful planning. The commission asked the applicant to return with a timeline, detailed methods for invasive disposal and a draft NOI that includes proposed plantings, stump treatment and community‑engagement plans.
Next steps: applicant to provide a filing (single NOI or phased filings), a timeline to enable summer work where possible, and written permission documentation for any work on properties controlled by others.
