A significant portion of the meeting revolved around the proposed fencing plan, designed to mitigate wildlife hazards at the airport. The commission debated the extent of tree clearing required to ensure safety and compliance with Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) grant assurances. Concerns were raised about obstructions from trees that had become “very tall again,” despite previous clearance efforts. The proposal suggested a 10-foot clearance on either side of the fence line, although some advocated for trimming rather than complete removal to reduce environmental disruption.

Participants highlighted the challenge of balancing the airport’s need for clear approach surfaces with environmental regulations, particularly concerning wetlands. The wetland impact associated with the project was quantified at 8,400 square feet, including space for the fence and adjacent tree clearing. The group planned to consult with the FAA to ensure that a wildlife hazard site visit report would validate the need for the proposed measures.

The commission also discussed the implications of needing navigation easements over parcels with trees obstructing the non-precision approach surfaces. These easements are essential for qualifying for federal funding for tree clearing. The discussion revealed concerns over the city’s financial capacity to acquire numerous easements and the logistics involved. The conversation referenced Pittsburgh’s experience, where 34 navigation easements were acquired before runway reconstruction.

Funding mechanisms were examined, noting that the FAA typically covers 90% of project costs, increasing to 95% for the fiscal year 2026. This would leave a relatively small percentage for the city to cover, though it still posed financial challenges. The potential community relations aspect was considered, with past experiences generally positive regarding similar efforts.

The meeting then shifted focus to the environmental assessment and instruction analysis, affected by new FAA administrative rules. These changes would simplify the process by removing the need for a public review, thus reducing associated costs. The environmental assessment’s research components would remain, essential for evaluating potential environmental impacts.

The proposed perimeter fence aimed to enclose the airport’s operational area, avoiding certain priority habitat areas to mitigate environmental impacts. This approach was deemed necessary due to permitting complexities in those regions. The commission considered leaving the fence off at the end of the runway, positively aligning with operational needs for tow planes and addressing wildlife management concerns.

Further discussion touched on the airport’s need for additional hangars and an equipment building, particularly in light of the potential arrival of the Great Boston Soaring Club. This could increase airport activity, with up to 40 flights a day, though it would not enhance FAA funding levels. The presence of the soaring club was seen as an opportunity for community engagement, including potential entertainment options like food trucks.

The commission also addressed maintenance and operational issues, including repairs to the automatic gate following wiring issues, and routine fire extinguisher maintenance. Fuel tank and system maintenance were confirmed to be in good working order, despite recent diaphragm issues that required a minor repair.