These minutes are not verbatim – they are the secretary’s interpretation of what took place at the meeting. – Open Meeting Law – Section III.
Board Members: Marc Garrett, Paul McAlduff, Tim Grandy, and Bill Wennerberg
Planning Board Alternate: Ken Buechs
Staff Members: Lee Hartmann, Valerie Massard, and Patrick Farah
Recording Secretary: Eileen Hawthorne
Administrative Notes:
Minutes
October 4, 2010
October 18, 2010
Paul McAlduff moved to approve the Administrative Notes as presented; the vote was unanimous (4-0).
Appointment
Plymouth Center Steering Committee (PCSC)
Michael Brophy addressed the Board regarding his interest in serving on the PCSC.
Paul McAlduff moved for the Board to appoint Michael Brophy to the Plymouth Center Steering Committee to the term that will expire June, 2012; the vote was unanimous (4-0).
Other Business:
B509 – The Trails – extension of covenant
Valerie Massard presented an extension of a covenant* for B509 - The Trails. The roads have been completed and the developer is refinancing. The refinancing terms require the covenant be extended to 2013.
Paul McAlduff moved for the Board to approve the extension of covenant for B509 – The Trails; the vote was unanimous (4-0).
Public Hearing
B437 - Pinehills LLC – Purchase Street
Marc Garrett read the public hearing notice* and opened the public hearing.
Bill Wennerberg recused himself from this public hearing and left the room.
Seated: Marc Garrett, Paul McAlduff and Tim Grandy
John Judge presented a modified definitive subdivision plan* for Purchase Street in the Pinehills development. The plan adjusts the road layout of Purchase Street and increases the size of two lots with frontage on Purchase Street.
Valerie Massard explained that the two existing lots on Purchase Street are being adjusted to provide a better turning radius and the Fire Department is supportive.
Paul McAlduff moved to close the public hearing; the vote was unanimous (3-0).
Tim Grandy moved to for the Board to approve the definitive subdivision plan as presented; the vote was unanimous (3-0).
BOA 3606 – Sustainable New Energy Inc. (11/17)
143 Hedges Pond Road, Map 55, Lot 52A-1
Atty. Edward Angley and Richard Tabaczynski, Atlantic Design Engineers, presented plans and accompanying studies * for two proposed wind turbines on property owned by Jeanine Anderson, located at 143 Hedges Pond Road. Atty. Angley submitted a letter from P. A. Landers stating that they have no objections to the encroachment of the fall zone from Turbine One. Mr. Tabaczinksi presented a site plan showing the proposed locations of the wind turbines; a plan detailing the 78.5 acre property, the location of the proposed turbines and abutting properties within a two mile radius; a larger scale plan with an aerial overlay showing the existing cranberry bogs, reservoirs, and gravel removal operation; and a plan reflecting the proposed conditions when the gravel removal and construction of the bogs and reservoirs are completed. The revised plan that the Board received in their packets addresses the Town’s consulting engineers concern with a portion of the fall zone on the NStar easement
by shifting Turbine 1 to eliminate the encroachment. The closest dwelling on Hedges Pond Road is 930 ft from Turbine 1; on Tree Top Way, 1200 ft., and on Admiral Byrd Road, 1400 ft. Access to the site will be off Hedges Pond Road utilizing existing bog roads. Some of the bog roads will require widening to accommodate construction vehicles. Mr. Tabaczinski reviewed photo simulations of the proposed turbines from various locations. He noted that the turbines may be visible (depending on vegetation) from areas on Tree Top Way and Admiral Byrd Road. He also presented a brief overview on the acoustic analysis, shadow flicker analysis, and noted that a balloon test was held on October 30, 2010. The acoustic analysis shows that the increase in noise levels complies with the State guidelines. The petitioner has offered a mitigation package for shadow flicker which includes planting of additional vegetation, installing window coverings on homes
affected by the shadow flicker and/or installation of a module that would shut the turbine down during peak flicker hours. Atty. Angley noted that these turbines will be constructed in a natural depression thereby reducing the visual impact to 60 meters. Atty. Angley expressed his concern with the fencing plan that may encroach upon the bog area and that he would like to revise the site plan to eliminate the fencing. The turbines are locked for security.
Patrick Farah noted that the bylaw states that the turbine should be secured. He also noted that the project appears to conform to the bylaw requirements and that staff recommends approval with conditions.
Lee Hartmann noted that the Town’s peer review included site plan review and a review of technical standards including shadow flicker and noise.
Public Comment:
In Favor
None
In Opposition:
Dr. Lee Burns questioned the timing of the baseline study for ambient noise.
Mr. Tabaczinski explained that the ambient noise measurements were taken at each location over a 24 hour period, but the numbers used in the calculations were taken during nighttime hours from 10 p.m. to 6 a.m. The measurements were in compliance with State regulations.
Paul Hapgood asked whether the proposed State law regarding wind energy would supersede the town’s Bylaw.
Marc Garrett replied that the proposed State law would supersede the Town’s bylaw and that he doesn’t believe it would be more stringent than the Town’s bylaw.
Mr. Hartmann noted that the proposed State law is less stringent than the Town and includes a provision that appeals would go through a regional planning agency. The applicant would choose whether to apply under the Town bylaw or State law.
Mr. Garrett noted that part of the proposed State law takes some of the control out of the Town’s jurisdiction.
Mr. Farah stated that the State could streamline the process and be more lenient.
Tim Grandy asked if there would be a local board reviewing the appeals.
Mr. Hartmann stated that it would be a local board reviewing any appeals.
Kay Turgeon asked whether the shadow flicker analysis included nights when there would be a full moon, whether the land for the turbines would be leased from the owner and why two turbines in this location is financially sound.
Simon Thomas, Atlantic Design Engineers, stated that shadow flicker is created by the sun’s rays, not the moon.
Jim Sweeney, Sustainable New Energy, stated that they would be leasing the land and that the size of the proposed turbines required less engineering and upfront costs. He also noted that they are in negotiations with the Town utilize the energy produced to power school or town buildings.
Tim Grandy asked whether the shadow flicker effects would exceed the 30 hour threshold and whether the Town would be purchasing the power from both turbines if an agreement is reached and if an agreement is not reached would residents be able to purchase the power. Mr. Grandy also asked if there have been any studies on the impact to real estate values.
Mr. Tabaczinski replied that the calculations do show that the 30 hour threshold may be exceeded, but that the calculations did not take into account the existing vegetation. He also noted that a mitigation package has been proposed to address any issues including installation of window treatments, additional vegetative screening and installation of a module that would shut down the turbines during peak shadow flicker hours.
Mr. Sweeney stated that the Town is being offered an opportunity to purchase the power from both turbines and that if the Town does not purchase the power, it is required that the power be sold back into the grid. He also stated that there have been numerous studies on projects in Massachusetts that indicate there is no decrease in home values.
Mr. Grandy expressed his concerns with Turbine 2 detracting from the viewshed quality for 65 Tree Top Way.
Paul McAlduff was supportive of the proposed project.
Mr. Garrett noted that he is supportive of alternative energy and is comfortable with the proposed conditions.
Paul McAlduff moved for the Board to recommend approval to the Zoning Board of Appeals subject to the following conditions:
The Petitioner shall agree to sell, as agreed, all energy produced from the proposed wind project to the Town of Plymouth, as part of fulfilling the 2020 Energy Framework.
Erosion control measures shall be depicted on the final plans. The use of erosion socks as part of the Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan is encouraged.
The tower shall be lit per Section 205-73 D (4) of the Bylaw and be a neutral, non-reflective color designed to blend with the surrounding environment, subject to applicable FAA requirements.
For the residences on Hedges Pond Road within the 30-52 hour zone shown graphically on the Shadow Flicker Impact in the analysis report specified above (Submitted Documents, Item 7), the Petitioner will implement measures to reduce the flicker for those residences below thirty (30) hours/year. Such measures issued by the Petitioner may include planting of trees/vegetative buffers, window treatments, operational measures and/or other effective measures as required and shall be submitted and approved by the Zoning Board of Appeals.
The Petitioner agrees to limit disturbance of vegetation during construction and will replant upon project completion a number of trees in locations determined based on revised landscaping plans and consultation with Zoning Board of Appeals.
No advertising signs are allowed for the wind turbine towers and their equipment cabinets. The allowed signage, required by the FCC, is to identify the owner of the facility and provide a twenty-four (24) hour contact number and other pertinent information.
The Zoning Board of Appeals shall require that an escrow account or other suitable surety be established to ensure adequate funds are available for removal of the wind turbine tower. The amount of such surety shall be equal to 150 percent of the net cost of compliance with Section 205-73D (10) of the Bylaw. The amount shall include a mechanism for a Cost of Living Adjustment after ten (10) and fifteen (15) years.
Any changes or additions to the project shall be submitted to the Zoning Board of Appeals in writing. The Zoning Board of Appeals shall determine if said changes are non-substantial. If deemed non-substantial, the Board may approve said changes in an informal hearing.
The Town is entitled to pursue the remedies set forth in Section 205-15 of the Bylaw in the event that the terms of this Special Permit approval are violated.
The Petitioner shall address the concerns of the Town Engineer, the Planning Board’s consulting engineer (Beals’), and Planning Staff’s punch-list of remaining items as they evolved through the public hearing process (to be prepared by staff and issued to the petitioner/applicant within five (5) business days of the date of the recording of this decision with the Town Clerk), to the satisfaction of the Zoning Board of Appeals.
Prior to the certificate of completion, said improvements are to be installed under the supervision of a registered professional engineer. The engineer must certify that the physical improvements noted in the site plan have been installed in accordance with the conditions noted here and accepted installation practices.
If the Unison U93 Wind Turbine system or a comparable turbine not exceeding the relevant specifications of the Unison U93 Wind Turbine is not the final selection of turbine for this project, the Petitioner shall return to the Board of Appeals for final approval of the manufacturer, color and specifications of the turbine. The Zoning Board of Appeals shall determine if the alternative system is comparable and does not exceed the originally submitted specifications.
The Building Commissioner is authorized to allow internal site field changes to the plans that do not amount to a substantial modification of the plans.~ Such changes may include substituting or moving particular plant material, number of shrubs or trees; moving a structure in a manner that does not materially change the project; reconfigure drainage areas; or similar changes where it is impractical to install or construct as originally designed.
The vote was (3-1-0) with Tim Grandy in opposition.
Appointment – A. D. Makepeace
TDR Certificates – Frogfoot East
Valerie Massard presented a map of the Frogfoot East area which is located in the southwest corner of Plymouth along the Carver and Wareham line. The area is a high priority for preservation as there is limited access, priority habitats, cranberry bogs and wetlands. A waiver of appraisal is being requested along with the application* to create 343 Transfer of Development Right (TDR) certificates. A.D. Makepeace has submitted plans that show 343 residential lots and associated infrastructure could be created. The TDR certificates would be landed elsewhere and would require a special permit and public hearing.
Judy Kohn, AD Makepeace stated that these certificates would preserve approximately half of the Frogfoot parcel (900 acres). In total, AD Makepeace has preserved in excess of 2,000 acres.
Tim Grandy moved for the Board to waive the appraisal requirements and approve the creation of 343 Transfer of Development Right certificates; the vote was unanimous (4-0).
Discussion
Capital Improvement Requests
Lee Hartmann asked the Board to consider what capital improvement requests they would like to submit for the next budget. In the past few years, the request has been for funding of the design standards for downtown. Mr. Hartmann reviewed the spreadsheet* detailing the projected requests for a Master Plan update, North Plymouth Design Standards, Zoning Bylaw Re-codification, GIS Flyover Update, and Cedarville, Manomet and West Plymouth Design Guidelines.
Paul McAlduff suggested adding a request for laptop computers for the Board members.
Mr. Hartmann stated that he would look into whether laptop computers would qualify as a capital expense.
Paul McAlduff moved for the Board to support the proposed capital improvement requests and request laptops for Board members; the vote was unanimous (4-0).
*On file with the Office of Planning and Development in project case files.
Respectfully Submitted,
Eileen M. Hawthorne Approved: November 8, 2010
Administrative Assistant
| 
