The Conservation Commission at its meeting Tuesday night approved the town’s proposed vegetative management plan in a 6-0 vote.

Department of Public Works Director Kerry Reed explained that she wanted to present additional information to show actions that will be taken to protect resource areas. The plan was first presented at the last meeting on Jan. 7, when the commission decided to take time to review it and vote at this meeting.

Consultant Stephanie Hanson explained that the five-year vegetative management plan (VMP) was completed to conform with Massachusetts Department of Agricultural Resources (MDAR) regulations. A yearly operational plan (YOP) also was submitted to MDAR at its Jan. 24 hearing.

She explained that the proposed herbicides are “sensitive area herbicides” that require an additional MDAR review before they can be applied. The herbicides are identified in the YOP, which the town will review annually.

The YOP also includes a condition that the DPW will work with the commission to go through the proposed route for herbicide application and “identify any sensitive areas,” according to Hanson. Both the VMP and YOP have sensitive area restriction tables that list no-spray and limited-spray areas.

Reed said that the intent of the plan is to use herbicides primarily in the downtown area, where mechanical harvesting is challenging. A key place where they would be used is on the sidewalk that runs from the Town Common to the Ashland line.

“Before we do any application, we have to do a walk-through,” she added, noting that the DPW can do this with Conservation Administrator Judy Day to mark any areas of concern. This was added as a condition of approval, as well as a condition that a final version of the VMP be presented to the commission within 30 days of MDAR approval.

Stressed Reed: “We’re trying to do the best we can meeting the demands of the public and complying with the state and federal laws.”

Chair Melissa Recos noted that other communities including Natick, Weston, Bolton and Danvers “all have very similar plans.”

“I’m feeling comfortable knowing our relationship with DPW,” she said, adding that DPW’s offer to review the area with Day was helpful.

Recos pointed out that the commission’s responsibility was to determine if the plan had enough information to be considered under a request for determination of applicability (RDA) process. It also needed to conform with the Wetland Protection Act as well as the town’s bylaw.

“Our purview under the bylaw is to protect our resource areas,” she continued. “We do not have purview under the bylaw for human health … [or] based on costs.”

Donald Sutherland and Carol Esler, two major opponents of the VMP, reiterated their concerns they expressed at the previous meeting as well as at the MDAR hearing. They revolved around the impact of chemicals on human and wildlife health. Lack of online notification was an issue for Sutherland, the chair of the Hopkinton Sustainable Green Committee’s Environmental Working Group (EWG), who noted that the School Department does so under its invasive management plan.

Esler, an EWG member, questioned the accuracy of the map included in the application. She said that Lake Maspenock was shown to have no sensitive areas despite having wetlands and vernal pools in its vicinity. Reed replied that the map showed areas that “were not readily identifiable,” whereas the lake would be readily identifiable.

Member Ed Harrow pointed out the “explosive” growth of knotweed along Spring Street, despite efforts he has made to control it manually. He suggested an educational workshop for residents who are interested in helping to control the spread of invasives manually on and near their properties.

Leonard Street discussion continued

The commission continued requests for certificates of compliance from developer Lou Petrozzi of Wall Street Development Corporation for 8 and 10 Leonard Street, citing incomplete application information. Petrozzi did not attend the meeting.

The two addresses are part of a three-unit subdivision that has experienced stormwater management issues since July 2021. There also is a history of paperwork not being filed in a timely manner and fines being imposed on Petrozzi by the town in 2023. Petrozzi at that time threatened to reopen litigation against the town.

Day explained that the site has been stabilized and that erosion controls were removed. There were some “minor differences” between the approved plan and the as-built project, including a deck outside of the buffer zone and a walkway in front of one of the homes. Member Janine LeBlanc pointed out that the walkway encroached into the 100-foot buffer zone.

Missing information included annual reporting on the planting plan for both homes, which was an original condition of approval. The status of the plantings and a report on the monitoring and removal of invasives also was not included.

Recos advised that the discussion be tabled to a future meeting.

DPW request for Fruit Street borings approved

The DPW requested a determination of applicability for the placement of exploratory geotechnical borings, which the commission approved in a 6-0 vote. They will be placed in the right of way between 55 and 66 Fruit Street in mid-February.

Reed explained that the DPW was awarded a grant from the state’s Division of Ecological Restoration to “do some field work” on a culvert that had been identified as part of a previous grant for resiliency efforts.

There are two culverts in that area where concerns about flooding have arisen, she said. The grant would allow for culvert improvement as well as ecological restoration and habitat improvement.

Up to two geotechnical borings would be placed at each culvert to gather soil data that would aid the DPW in forming a plan for an eventual culvert redesign. Straw waddles will be placed within 10 feet of the boring locations to catch any sediment overflow, and the site will be restored to its original state once the borings are in place.

Day asked if wash water would be “a byproduct of the borings” and how it would be disposed. A sediment filter will be used to capture the wash water to prevent it from being discharged to any of the resource areas there.

Harrow noted that this area is a major crossing point for turtles and received assurances that the culverts will be upgraded to accommodate them. Reed explained that this project will create “a lot of opportunities to reconnect habitat” that primarily is on town land.