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 and Patrick Farah
Recording Secretary: Eileen Hawthorne
The Board had a moment of silence in memory of Frank Paoluccio.
Administrative Notes:
Minutes
The Board approved the minutes of November 1, 2010*.
The Board approved the name “John Paul Lane” for the access to B527 – John Paul Estates (formerly Black Cat Estates)*.
The Board determined that the following Form A Plan* was entitled to endorsement:
A4386 – Adam Hay, Westminster Drive/Saquish, Map 132, Lots G-39 (4,000 sf), G-40 (4,000 sf), G-65 through G-69 (20,000 sf) – Combine into one lot G-279 (28,000 sf)
Paul McAlduff moved to approve the Administrative Notes as presented; the vote was unanimous (4-0).
B510 – Stonegate Farm – Covenant Extension
Atty. Robert Betters presented a request* to extend the covenant for B510 – Stonegate Farm for an additional two years. Condition No. 13 of the Planning Board’s decision required a contribution of $175,000 to the Town for roadway and infrastructure improvements in the adjacent area. The contributions were to be made as follows: 30% prior to the issuance of a building permit; 30 % prior to the occupancy permit for the 10th residential unit; and the balance prior to the occupancy permit for the 20th residential unit. The petitioner’s previous request for an extension was granted and a contribution of $58,830 was submitted. Atty. Betters suggested that half of the balance be due one year from the date of the extension (if this request is granted) with the remainder
being due prior to the end of the two year extension period.
Paul McAlduff moved for the Board to approve a covenant extension (to November 7, 2012) with payment conditions as follows: half of the balance would be due one year from the date of the extension with the remainder being due prior to the end of the two year extension period; the vote was unanimous (4-0).
BOA 3609 – Sheava LLC
Scobee Circle/Map 103, Lot 14K-142
The following documents* were submitted by the applicant for this review of BOA 3609 - Sheava LLC:
Site Plan entitled “Special Permit Site Plans for Sheava Development Wind Project” (9 pages) dated October 7, 2010, prepared by Atlantic Design Engineers, LLC of Sandwich, Massachusetts (“Atlantic Design”).
Sheava Development Wind Project entitled “Environmental Impact Statement” (22 pages) dated October 7, 2010, prepared by Atlantic Design.
Product General Description, VENSYS 1.5 MW Wind Turbine “VENSYS 1.5 MW Turbine, Technical Details” (2 pages), prepared by Vensys, Wellesueiler, Germany, provided to the Town of Plymouth by Atlantic Design.
Letter entitled “Determination of No Hazard to Air Navigation” (5 pages) dated August 11, 2010, prepared by Federal Aviation Administration of Fort Worth, Texas.
Aeronautics Division MassDOT File No.: 10PYM-V0405-23 entitled “Request for Airspace Review” (2 pages) dated August 24, 2010, prepared by the Massachusetts Department of Transportation.
Sheava Development Wind Project entitled “Shadow Flicker Analysis” (45 pages) dated October 7, 2010, prepared by Atlantic Design.
Sheava Development Wind Project entitled “Acoustic Analysis” (45 pages) dated October 7, 2010, prepared by Atlantic Design.
Sheava Development Wind Project entitled “Balloon Test & Photosimulation Report” (40 pages) dated October 7, 2010, prepared by Atlantic Design.
Sheava Development Wind Project entitled “RETScreen Energy Model” (Capacity Factor Calculation) (2 pages) received by Atlantic Design.
“Cost Estimate for Turbine Removal/Decommissioning” letter (1 page) dated October 8, 2010 and prepared by Atlantic Design.
Department of Inspectional Services “Zoning Permit”, (1 page) dated September 29, 2010, prepared by Sheava, LLC. and submitted by Atlantic Design.
U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Aviation Administration, Advisory Circular entitled “Obstruction Marking and Lighting and Flash Technologies “FTB 360i LED Integrated L864 Technical Specifications” (16 pages) dated February 1, 2007.
Atty. Edward Angley and Richard Tabaczynski, Atlantic Design Engineers, Inc., presented a request for a Special Permit subject to Environmental Design Conditions for wind energy facilities in order to construct one wind turbine tower on a site zoned for Light Industrial. The eight acre site abuts North Triangle Pond. The proposed turbine would be 230 ft. to the hub with 134 ft. blades for a total height of 364 ft. and would be located at the northeast corner of the site. The site will not require any clearing and the natural wooded area around the pond will remain intact. The petitioner is working with Comcast to obtain a letter of no objection for the portion of the fall zone that is on the Comcast property. Mr. Tabaczynski presented the following plans*: a site plan detailing the surrounding area, a
larger scale plan showing the setbacks and the locations of the closest dwellings, and photo-simulations with the proposed turbine superimposed detailing the visibility from various locations. Mr. Tabaczynski noted that the shadow flicker analysis* shows that the adjacent commercial building will experience shadow flicker for approximately 131 hours which is in excess of the 30 hour industry threshold while the residential homes in the area will experience less than the 30 hour threshold. The acoustic study* shows the increase in decibel level at 9.3 for the nearest residence where the state regulation prohibits development from increasing sound by more than 10 decibels.
Patrick Farah outlined the following staff concerns: the town’s peer review consultant has not submitted final comments; the airport manager has verbally expressed concerns but has not submitted a written response; Comcast has not submitted a letter regarding the fall zone; the decibel levels are close to the threshold limit; shadow flicker will exceed the recommended thresholds at the surrounding commercial buildings; the balloon test has not been completed yet and is scheduled for Saturday, November 13th; and the proposed project has not been presented to the steering committees yet.
Lee Hartmann suggested that the Board take public comment and that the Board should comment and continue their review to November 22, 2010 as there is a long punch list of additional information that should be submitted.
The Board took Public Comment:
In Favor:
None
In Opposition and questions:
Janet Young asked whether the residents of Plymouth Mobile Estates were notified of the meetings.
Atty. Angley stated that the petitioner has been in contact with the president of Plymouth Mobile Home Estates and that the formal abutter’s notification of the public hearing has not been mailed out by the Zoning Board of Appeals yet.
Ms. Young was concerned that there was not enough notification.
Marc Garrett clarified that the Planning Board will be making a recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals (ZBA) who is the permitting authority. The statute requires abutter notification and advertisement of public hearings by the permitting authority.
Kevin Steel, North Triangle Dr. expressed his concerns with the proposed setback requirements, a possible violation of the 100 ft. buffer zone around the industrial park, the proposed noise levels and the sound travelling across the pond, potential health issues, a portion of the fall zone being over the pond that is used for recreation by the adjacent neighborhoods, the impact on property values, and impact on public safety.
Victor Lahteine, 71 North Triangle Dr., asked whether Comcast would be receiving monetary or other compensation for allowing a portion of the fall zone on their property. He also expressed his concern with the collection of the acoustical information and noise impacts on the neighborhood.
Russ Appelyard encouraged the Board to look carefully at the noise analysis and the potential noise impact on the neighborhoods.
Joe Spinetti was also concerned with the noise impacts.
Tracy Baldrate, Grabau Dr., expressed concerns with the anticipated noise levels, blade reflection and lighting of the turbines.
Marc Garrett stated that the top of the hub will be lit for visibility by aircrafts, but not the blades.
Mr. Tabaczynski stated that the blades are painted with a non-reflective paint.
Allan Robbins, North Triangle Dr., was concerned with the visibility from the waterfront, neighborhoods and surrounding areas.
Mike Iameli, North Triangle Dr., asked if the residents would benefit from the energy produced.
Mr. Tabaczynski replied that the energy produced will be used to power the petitioner’s building and the excess may be sold to the Town of Plymouth.
Atty. Angley stated that as part of the Town’s 2020 vision, the goal is that the Town buildings would be powered by 100 percent renewable energy by the year 2020.
Steve Wilson, North Triangle Dr., asked what the life span of a wind turbine is and who would dismantle it if the project is not viable. He also expressed concerns with safety issues regarding snow and ice build up on the turbine blades.
Mr. Tabaczynski replied that the life span of a turbine is 20-25 years and that a bond will be in place for future mitigation. He noted that there is protocol that the turbines will not operate during snow and icing conditions and cannot be restarted until a visual inspection is completed.
Keith Jepson, North Triangle Dr., stated that this is a business transaction for the proponent and the quality of life for the abutting neighborhoods is more important. Mr. Jepson suggested that a study of noise and shadow flicker should be done during the winter when there is less foliage on the trees.
Chris Banshee, Seneca Ln., expressed his concerns with the loss of real estate values. He stated that he would not have bought his house if he knew a turbine was proposed in the area. Elisabeth Denham, Megansett Dr., suggested that a location that wouldn’t have a significant impact on the residents would be more appropriate.
Dick Beatson, Grabau Dr., asked how big the building is that would be powered by the energy produced and he expressed his concerns with the height of the turbines.
Mr. Tabaczynski replied that the owner’s building would use the power produced and the rest would go into the grid.
Mr. Garrett explained that the bylaw approved by Town Meeting allows for higher heights for turbines through a special permit process.
Laurel Weinstock, 7 Cayuga Cir., stated that the Prudential Center is 750 ft tall and this turbine would be over half that height. She also noted that Sheava LLC was incorporated last December to operate wind turbines. Ms. Weinstock was concerned that the petitioner is not knowledgeable about the impacts of turbines.
Peter Ferante, 9 Cayuga Cir., was concerned with the location of the proposed turbine and its proximity to abutting residences.
Lamar Bullock, 40 Megansett Dr., asked who would be responsible for enforcing the acoustic requirements if the noise levels are impacting the neighbors.
Mr. Garrett replied that if a special permit is issued, it would be enforced by the building department.
Janet Young asked if any conservation studies have been done and what the impact on endangered species would be.
Mr. Garrett explained that a portion of the site is an estimated habitat and if construction occurs within the habitat Natural Heritage would become involved and a separate review process would be required.
Mr. Steele stated that the acoustic studies are done to benefit the petitioner and that the decibel thresholds are close to being exceeded. He noted that Falmouth has to limit the operation of their turbine during certain conditions.
The Board took a five-minute break.
Bill Wennerberg stated that he was not supportive of the proposed turbine as it was far too large and positioned too close to residential homes. Mr. Wennerberg felt that the size, location, noise and fall zone would affect the quality of life of the abutting residents.
Tim Grandy was also concerned with the proximity to the residential neighborhoods, the airport manager’s concerns, the proposed fall zone being over the pond, the sound being too close to the threshold, the visual impact on the abutting neighborhoods, and the potential impact to real estate values. Mr. Grandy also wanted to have an opportunity to review the Town’s peer review consultant report.
Paul McAlduff also wanted to review the peer review consultant report and to hear from the airport manager regarding his concerns.
Mr. Garrett acknowledged that the concerns raised by the Board and the neighborhoods are valid. He stated that he has been supportive of other proposed turbines, but the siting of this turbine is of concern given the size of the proposed turbine, the topography and the proximity to abutting neighborhoods. Mr. Garrett stated that there were many unanswered questions and suggested that the Board could continue their review.
Mr. Wennerberg agreed that additional information could be submitted, but it wouldn’t change the turbine’s location, size and impact to the neighborhoods. Mr. Wennerberg moved to recommend denial to the Zoning Board of Appeals based on the following:
The Applicant has not adequately addressed the Plymouth Airport Manager’s concerns with regard to air traffic safety, per Federal Aviation Administration, Determination of No Hazard to Air Navigation, Aeronautical Study No. 2010-WTE-7995-OE.
North Triangle Pond, a publicly accessible pond, is located within the fall zone for the proposed turbine.
Tower placement does not meet the Wind Energy Facilities Bylaw setback requirement of a distance equal to the overall height of the tower (364.1 feet) from the nearest lot line. The Petitioner has not secured written authorization for portion of the clear zone within the abutting lot (Map 103, Lot 14K-101), owned by Comcast of Conn/Georgia/Mass.
The proposed turbine will detract from the visual character or quality of the adjacent dwellings as it lies within close proximity to several neighborhoods. Residents at 59 and 65 North Triangle Drive lie within 600 feet of the proposed turbine while 10 homes fall within the 1000 foot buffer (49, 55, 59, 65, 71, 72, 75, 79, 80 & 85 North Triangle Drive). Furthermore, having North Triangle Pond as part of the setback reduces natural screening (i.e. there is no topography change and no vegetation on the pond).
Receptor I (Comcast Building) is expected to experience over 131 hours of shadow flicker, greatly exceeding the 30 hour estimated limit.
The vote was (3-1) with Paul McAlduff in opposition.
BOA 3607 – Colony Place Development LLC
Colony Village Drive/Map 102, Lot 26-14
The following documents* were submitted by the applicant for this review of BOA 3607 – Colony Place Development LLC:
Site Plan entitled “Special Permit Site Plans for Colony Place Wind Project” (8 pages) dated October 5, 2010, prepared by Atlantic Design Engineers, LLC of Sandwich, Massachusetts (“Atlantic Design”).
Colony Place Turbine Project entitled “Environmental Impact Statement” (25 pages) dated September 28, 2010, prepared by Atlantic Design.
Product General Description, UNISON Wind Turbine for IEC Class I, II, & III Wind Conditions (750kW), “ Unison 750kW Turbine” (8 pages), prepared by Unison Co., LTD, Republic of Korea, provided to the Town of Plymouth by Atlantic Design.
Letter entitled “Determination of No Hazard to Air Navigation” (5 pages) dated September 2, 2010, prepared by Federal Aviation Administration of Fort Worth, Texas.
Aeronautics Division MassDOT File No.: 10PYM-V0305-22 entitled “Request for Airspace Review” (2 pages) dated August 24, 2010, prepared by the Massachusetts Department of Transportation.
Colony Place Wind Project entitled “Shadow Flicker Analysis” (47 pages) dated September 28, 2010, prepared by Atlantic Design.
Colony Place Wind Project entitled “Acoustic Analysis” (38 pages) dated September 28, 2010, prepared by Atlantic Design.
Colony Place Wind Project entitled “Balloon Test & Photosimulation Report” (35 pages) dated September 28, 2010, prepared by Atlantic Design.
Colony Place Wind Project entitled “RETScreen Energy Model” (Capacity Factor Calculation) (2 pages) received by Atlantic Design.
“Cost Estimate for Turbine Removal/Decommissioning” letter (1 page) dated October 4, 2010 and prepared by Atlantic Design.
Department of Inspectional Services “Zoning Permit”, dated August 17, 2010, prepared by Saxon Partners and submitted by Atlantic Design.
U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Aviation Administration, Advisory Circular entitled “Obstruction Marking and Lighting and Flash Technologies “FTB 360i LED Integrated L864 Technical Specifications” dated February 1, 2007.
Beals & Thomas (Beals’), Colony Place Wind Project “Review Services for Colony Place Wind Project” dated October 28, 2010, submitted by Beal’s.
Atty. Edward Angley and Richard Tabaczynski, Atlantic Design Engineers, Inc., presented a request for a Special Permit subject to Environmental Design Conditions for wind energy facilities in order to construct one wind turbine tower on a site zoned for Mixed Commerce. Atty. Angley felt that this commercial site and the smaller size of the turbine (301.76 ft.) would be appropriate.
Mr. Tabaczynski reviewed the site plan* for the proposed wind turbine. The site is a commercially developed property consisting of 33.4 acres. The turbine would be located at the northern end off the property opposite Sleepy’s, with a portion of the fall zone on Mass Highway Rte 44. The turbine would consist of a 65 meter tower (to the tip of the hub) with 27 meter blades, bringing the total height to 92 meters (301.76 ft.). Mr. Tabaczynski noted that similar studies (shadow flicker analysis*, acoustic analysis* and photo-simulations*) have been submitted for this project. The closest residential dwelling is approximately 3,500 ft. from the proposed location of the turbine. Mr. Tabaczynski stated that the shadow flicker will be limited to the commercial area and the
turbine will be visible from the surrounding area as there is no natural screening. Mr. Tabaczynski presented the photo-simulations showing the visibility from Grey Oaks, Rte 44, and the intersection of Commerce Way and Industrial Park Road. The turbine will not be visible from the North Triangle Drive neighborhood. The Town’s peer review consultant has no major issues with the project and the project meets the FAA requirements.
Atty. Angley stated that he has received an e-mail from Mass Highway that an access permit is not necessary and they do not object to the location of the turbine, but do want to see the structural design of the tower footings. Atty. Angley noted that shadow flicker does not affect moving vehicles.
Patrick Farah stated that staff has been waiting for a response from Mass Highway. Mr. Farah noted that a balloon test is scheduled for Saturday November 13, 2010. Although the bylaw only addresses setbacks from lot lines, staff has some concerns about the fall zone including commercial buildings and a portion of Rte. 44.
The Board took Public Comment.
In Favor:
Brian Kuhn, former chair of Energy Committee and owner of Aeronautica Windpower, explained that his company would be constructing this turbine and this proposed turbine is more in scale with other community wind turbines. He stated that Plymouth is the home of the only mid scale manufacturer of wind turbines and employees Plymouth residents.
Matt Glynn, Glynn Electric, expressed his support for the project. He stated that this would not be affecting residences, is a lot smaller, and meets FAA requirements.
In Opposition:
Janet Young expressed her concerns with shadow flicker on the vehicles traveling on the highway and the lighting of the turbine.
Mr. Tabaczynski explained that there will be a small blinking red light that shines upward for navigation by airplanes and won’t create a glare hazard for vehicular traffic.
Dick Beatson expressed his concerns with shadow flicker on the commercial buildings, potential noise levels affecting the residential areas even thought they are 3000 ft away and the visibility from the surrounding area.
Paul McAlduff expressed his support for a turbine at this location.
Tim Grandy questioned the shadow flicker’s affect on moving vehicles. He agreed in general that this was an appropriate site.
Atty. Angley stated that shadow flicker affects stationary objects, but agreed to provide additional information to the Board.
Mr. Tabaczynski noted that there has been a change in the turbine manufacturer and that he would need to update the brochure the Board received.
Marc Garrett felt that in general the site was appropriate, but he was concerned with the location on the site and the fall zone including the commercial buildings and a portion of Rte 44. The commercial buildings although owned by the proponents, are occupied by tenants and the general public uses the facilities and the adjacent highway, therefore there is a potential public safety issue.
Atty. Angley did not think it likely that the turbine would fall.
Tim Grandy asked who would be liable if the turbine or blades did fall.
Mr. Tabaczynksi stated that there are several turbines on public property and the structural design of the foundations is solid.
Bill Wennerberg asked if there were any statistics on cell towers or turbines falling.
Mr. Tabaczynski replied that the industry is decades old and there has been accidents, but he doesn’t know of any turbines that have fallen. There have been instances where portions of the blades have fallen.
Lee Hartmann stated that there is an issue when the fall zone goes beyond property lines. Mr. Hartmann suggested that the Board continue their review to November 22, 2010 to allow for submission of information from Mass Highway and for the Board to attend the balloon test on Saturday, November 13, 2010.
The Board continued their review of BOA Case 3607 to November 22, 2010.
Other Business:
Annual Town Meeting Zoning Articles
The Board reviewed a list* of proposed zoning changes that have been submitted throughout the years for their consideration as town meeting articles for the April Annual Town Meeting. The warrant closes in a few weeks. Mr. Hartmann stated that he felt that the ongoing site plan review and Industrial/Commercial/Office Land Study Committee report may not be ready for action by this spring. He also asked the Board if there was anything they would like to add or remove from the list. A future article that should be considered is adopting an official zoning map based on GIS.
Bill Wennerberg suggested adding an article that would allow accessory structures. He was supportive of allowing TDR for commercial properties, reviewing reduced frontage lots, and repealing the 55+ zoning.
Tim Grandy questioned a proposed revision to the wind energy bylaw and the creation of a solar power generation bylaw.
Mr. Hartmann stated that these were proposed by a member of the Energy Committee at one time. The bylaw doesn’t address solar energy, so he would look for guidance by the Energy Committee.
Bill Wennerberg asked about the bed and breakfast process.
Mr. Hartmann stated that right now a bed and breakfast is considered a home occupation and is limited to 25% of the building space. It might be beneficial to look at a larger percentage for larger homes.
Mr. Wennerberg asked about a potential petitioned article for a land swap on Taylor Ave.
Mr. Hartmann replied that the owner of a piece of property near Hilltop Ave has proposed a land swap, but has not filed a petition.
Mr. Garrett felt that staff is putting a lot of time into the site plan review process and working on the industrial land review process.
Tim Grandy noted that staff is also working on updating the North Plymouth and Manomet master plans.
Mr. Hartmann stated that staff is also working on the 43D designation for the 1820 Courthouse project.
Paul McAlduff updated the Board on the progress at Plymouth North High School. The top off has been completed and the project is moving forward ahead of schedule and below budget.
Tim Grandy moved to adjourn.
Marc Garrett reminded the Board about submitting site plan review comments to staff and suggested moving the review to December 6, 2010.
The Board voted to adjourn at 9:52 p.m.; 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 22, 2010
Administrative Assistant
| 
