Town of Plymouth, MA - Planning Board Minutes November 22, 2010

Planning Board Minutes November 22, 2010

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, Larry Rosenblum, and Bill Wennerberg

Planning Board Alternate: Ken Buechs

Staff Members: Lee Hartmann, Valerie Massard and Patrick Farah

Recording Secretary: Eileen Hawthorne

Administrative Notes:

Minutes

November 8, 2010.

Paul McAlduff moved for the Board to approve the minutes of November 8, 2010* as presented; the vote was (3-0-1) with Larry Rosenblum in abstention.

BOA 3611 – Albert and Mary Lanigan

7 Hallick Road, Map 96, Lot 20-107

The Board received the following documentation* for review:

Staff report dated November 18, 2010

Comments from the Plymouth Fire Department dated November 3, 2010.

Locus Map

Pictures of Existing Dwelling

Drawings of the Proposed Addition by C. D. Calhoun Associated Inc., dated 8/20/10

Valerie Massard noted that the proposed condition in the staff report is not necessary as this is an attached garage, not a detached garage.

Mark Flaherty explained the petition to add one bay to an existing single car garage.

Paul McAlduff moved to recommend approval to the Zoning Board of Appeals without the condition in staff’s report; the vote was (3-1-0) with Larry Rosenblum in opposition.

Form A Plans*:

A4387 – Stout Commerce Way Trust, Commerce Way and 3 and 5 Resnik Road, Map 103, Lots 14K-124 (2.83A) and 14K-125 (2.9A) – Combine lots to create lot 14K-167 (5.73 A)

A4388 – Robert D and Judith Graham and the Town of Plymouth, Ryder Way, Map 37A, Lots O-5 (10.04A), 155 and 156 (0.31A) – Land exchange per 2010 Fall Town Meeting Article 36 to create Land Court lots 8 (18,000 sf) and 9 (9.6A)

Bill Wennerberg moved for the Board to approve Form A plans A4387 and 4388; the vote was unanimous (4-0).

A4389 – Pinehills LLC, Hitching Post, Map 77C, Lots 10-342 (22664 sf) and 10-343 (21,966 sf) – Lot Line Adjustment to create lots 10-511 (21966 sf) and 10-512 (22664 sf)

Paul McAlduff moved for the Board to determine that A4389 was entitled to endorsement; the vote was (3-0-1) with Bill Wennerberg in abstention.

Public Hearing – Pinehills LLC

Cobblestone

Marc Garrett read the public hearing notice and opened the public hearing.

Bill Wennerberg recused himself from this public hearing and left the room.

The Board received the following documentation* for review:

Memo from Valerie Massard dated November 17, 2010

Draft vote dated November 17, 2010

Plans entitled “Modified Definitive Subdivision Plan, Cobblestone at Pinehills, Located in Plymouth, Massachusetts, prepared by Tetra Tech, dated October 13, 2010.”

Seated: Marc Garrett, Paul McAlduff and Larry Rosenblum

John Judge presented the plans for a definitive subdivision in the Pinehills’ development. The neighborhood was previously approved with a cul-de-sac that was never constructed. The modification details a looped roadway for a cottage style neighborhood with decreased lot size and increased density. The increased density is consistent with the Pinehills’ dwelling count. This neighborhood is within walking distance of the village center.

Valerie Massard noted that the modification plan meets all the requirements of the subdivision, OSMUD Rules and Regulations, and the OSMUD Special Permit.

Public Comment:

In Favor: None

In Opposition: None

Larry Rosenblum moved to close the public hearing; the vote was unanimous (3-0).

Larry Rosenblum moved for the Board to approve the modified subdivision for the Cobblestone neighborhood in the Pinehills Development as presented; the vote was unanimous (3-0).

Bill Wennerberg rejoined the meeting.

BOA 3232 – Manomet Ponds LLC

Definitive Plan

Lee Hartmann, Planning Director left the room during this review.

The Board received the following documentation for review:

Memo from Valerie Massard dated November 18, 2010

Fact Sheet on Chapter 40B

Draft Vote dated November 18, 2010

Comments from Beals and Thomas dated November 16, 2010

Distribution Memo from Valerie Massard dated October 6, 2010

Comments from Fire Department dated October 21, 2010

Comments from DPW dated October 25, 2010

Copy of Modification of Comprehensive Permit for Case 3232 NOD dated October 21, 2010

Copy of Modification of Comprehensive Permit for Case 3232 NOD dated October 13, 2009

Copy of Modification of Comprehensive Permit for Case 3232 NOD dated August 22, 2007

Copy of Comprehensive Permit Under Chapter 40B for Case No. 3232, dated Sept. 29, 2005

Letter from Atlantic Design Engineers dated September 28, 2010

Locus Maps

Plan entitled “Preliminary Subdivision Plan of Bartlett Pond Pasture”, dated May 22, 2002, revised March 1, 2004; October 19, 2004 and September 27, 2005, prepared by Atlantic Design Engineers LLC

Plan entitled “Definitive Plan of Land – Overall Lot Layout Plan for Bartlett Pond Pasture”, dated September 28, 2010, prepared by Atlantic Design Engineers LLC, Sandwich, MA.

Richard Tabaczynski, Atlantic Design Engineering Inc., stated that he was at the meeting to answer questions; that definitive subdivision plan meets the conditions of the Chapter 40B comprehensive permit and that the comments from the Beals and Thomas peer review will be addressed before the Zoning Board of Appeals (ZBA).

Valerie Massard noted that the comprehensive permit for 60 dwelling units and associated roadways was approved by the Zoning Board of Appeals in September of 2005 after being remanded back to the Town by the Housing Appeals Committee (HAC) (the original petition was denied by the Zoning Board of Appeals and the petitioner appealed the decision to HAC). Town Counsel has advised the Town to hold a public hearing process through the ZBA which will consist of a technical review of the definitive subdivision plan. The definitive plan shows no changes to the roadways and details the lots for the 20 units in Phase One. Ms. Massard noted that recently a Form A plan was approved that created a new lot that was originally part of the comprehensive permit approved site and a building permit has been issued for the newly created lot. A condition has been suggested that requests that the applicant confirm with the State the eligibility of the site due to the Form A lot and building permit and with respect to density under the comprehensive permit. Comment letters have been submitted by the Beals and Thomas, DPW and Fire Chief expressing their concerns which need to be addressed by the applicant.

Kevin Doyle noted that the neighbors are still concerned with the proposed access and increased traffic on small streets in the White Horse Beach area.

Larry Rosenblum stated that a recommendation has been made to install a street light at the entrance off Bates Road and asked if that would make sense for the adjacent neighborhood.

Mr. Doyle stated that a street light at the suggested location would not make sense.

Ms. Massard suggested that a low sensitive light that highlights the entrance might be more than adequate.

Mr. Rosenblum noted that although the plan is consistent with an approved plan and has been through the remand process, the Fire Chief has concerns with the emergency access and has suggested that residential sprinklers be installed in the dwellings. Mr. Rosenblum was supportive of the Fire Chief’s request.

Ms. Massard stated that a Chapter 40B project is exempt from anything that was not required under the remand decision and has to be consistent with the waivers granted. They have to meet current building code requirements which do not require the installation of residential sprinklers.

Mr. Rosenblum stated that the access issue is an incredible burden on the project and the proposed fire sprinklers would provide safety for the residents.

Marc Garrett and Paul McAldfuff agreed with Mr. Rosenblum that the suggestion regarding residential sprinklers should be added to the Board’s recommendation.

Larry Rosenblum moved to recommend approval to the Zoning Board of Appeals subject to the following:

RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS (subject to review by Town Counsel):

The Applicant shall maintain copies of the endorsed and recorded Approved Plan and

Comprehensive Permit at the Site during construction.

The Applicant shall present the plans and profiles to the Board of Appeals for

endorsement within 120 days from the date of approval, or in the case of an appeal, for

endorsement of the plans and profiles within 120 days of the settlement of an appeal.

The Applicant shall complete all ways and the installation of all municipal services in

accordance with the Rules and Regulations within two (2) years from the date of

endorsement.

The Applicant shall guarantee to protect, repair, replace, and where necessary, and upon

written acceptance by the Board of Appeals, redesign the works constructed and submit

revised plans and profiles for the Board of Appeal's approval and for recording at the

Plymouth County Registry of Deeds so that said works actually carry out the purposes for

which they were intended. Said repair, replacement or redesign will be based upon

experience in the field, which demonstrates the existing construction and/or design to

have been improperly installed or wholly inadequate.

The roadways, utilities, drainage systems, wastewater collection systems, and all other

infrastructure shown on the Approved Plan shall remain private until such time, if any, as

they may be accepted by the Town. As long as they remain private, the Town shall not

have any legal responsibility for the operation or maintenance of the roadways and other

infrastructure in the Development Project, including but not limited to snow removal and

trash collection.

The Applicant shall record a covenant or other instrument detailing the creation of a

homeowner's trust or association and to provide the imposition of easements or rights for

the benefit of the homeowner’s trust or association with respect to passive recreational

area(s), drainage facilities and appurtenances, drainage lots and roadway/emergency

access areas to be to be owned in common by the dwelling owners and maintained by the

homeowner’s trust or association in a form acceptable to Town Counsel. Said covenant

or instrument shall be in place prior to the issuance of Occupancy Permits.

Prior to endorsement of the plans:

(a) The Applicant shall provide satisfactory evidence to the Board of Appeals from the

appropriate state agency that the Site maintains its eligibility under MGL Chapter

40B consistent with the Project Eligibility Letter issued by Mass Housing, dated

February 3, 2004, with respect to overall density and in light of the single-family

home construction underway on the Site.

(b) The Applicant shall have the proposed road name “Bartlett Pond Drive,” approved by

the Fire Chief and Department of Public Works for emergency response purposes

under 911, using the Planning Board’s one page Form for same.

approval, and written responses to clarify requests for information shall be submitted

by the Applicant, to satisfy the technical issues raised by the Fire Department, Beals

& Thomas (the Town’s consulting engineer) and Department of Public works under

Advisory, and in response to the following numbered items, to the satisfaction of the

Board of Appeals:

(1) It is unclear if the detail for the “access drive cross section” on Sheet 6 is the

detail for the paving of the emergency access drive.

(2) The plans shall include a proposed Landscaping Plan consistent with Section 408,

Slopes and Walls, and Section 411, Street Trees and Landscaping, of the Rules

and Regulations.

(3) The plans shall clearly state that the emergency access drive paving and

installation of breakaway barriers shall be part of Phase I of the Definitive Plan.

(4) A detail for the permanent address markers shall be added, subject to approval by

the Board of Appeals, consistent with Section 409 of the Rules and Regulations.

(d) A performance guarantee shall be submitted to the Board of Appeals by the

Applicant, in one of, or a combination of, the methods specified in Section 81U of the

G.L. c. 41, in the form of a covenant duly executed and approved, to be noted on the

plan and recorded with the Plymouth County Registry of Deeds, and sufficient to

ensure the satisfactory completion of all roadway construction and installation of all

municipal services shown on the Approved Plan. Said form of guarantee may be

varied from time to time by the Applicant with mutual agreement on the content of

said guarantee by the Applicant and Board of Appeals without amendment or

modification of this approval.

(e) The Applicant shall provide a maintenance program for stormwater facilities at the

road, drainage lots and roadway areas to be maintained by the homeowner’s

association on said plan or revised plan detailed as an exhibit to the homeowner’s

trust or association documents referenced above.

Prior to commencement of any construction activity on the Site, the Applicant shall

provide the Board of Appeals and the Building Commissioner with:

(a) a copy of a municipal lien certificate indicating that all taxes, assessments and

charges due on the premises have been paid;

(b) evidence that the Approved Plan and this Comprehensive Permit have been recorded

in the Registry of Deeds for Plymouth; and provide to the Board of Appeals;

required for the disturbance of more than one acre of land;

(d) a copy of the appropriate Street Opening Permit(s) from the Department of Public

Works; and

(e) five (5) sets of full size copies of all drawings comprising the definitive plan with one

complete set of reproducible plans (mylars) and one (1) electronic copy of the plans

in a format acceptable to the Town Engineer.

Prior to installation of the Subdivision Sign/Entrance Monuments shown on Sheet 3 at

the entrance to the Development, plans and specifications for the same shall be reviewed

by the Building Commissioner for compliance with the Zoning Bylaw.

Prior to issuance of an Occupancy Permit at the site, evidence shall be provided to the

Board of Appeals that the instrument creating the homeowner’s trust or association per

Condition 6 above to be imposed by the Applicant on the subject property, approved as to

form by Town Counsel, has been recorded with the Plymouth County Registry of Deeds.

Definitive Plans for future phases of the Site shall provide satisfactory evidence from the

appropriate state agency that any work shown on the plans within an area regulated under

the Massachusetts Endangered Species Act (MESA) has been approved, due to the

Estimated Habitat of Rare Wildlife and Priority Habitat of Rare Species in the vicinity of

Bartlett Pond as shown on the 2008 maps created by the Massachusetts Natural Heritage

& Endangered Species Program under MESA.

Prior to the Board of Appeals’ release of the surety bond or deposit, or in the case of a

covenant issued as a certificate of performance,

(a) the Applicant or Developer shall supply the Board of Appeals with one (1)

reproducible set, one (1) electronic set in electronic format compatible with standards

established by the Town Engineer, and two (2) prints of As Built Plans consistent

with Section 505 of the Rules and Regulations; and

(b) the Applicant shall submit to the Board of Appeals an engineer’s certificate of

performance certifying that the ways within the subdivision have been completed in

accordance with the Rules and Regulations and the definitive plan and profiles

consistent with Section 504 of the Rules and Regulations.

In addition to the draft vote with recommended conditions as outlined above (which is under review by Town Counsel), please note the following points raised by the Planning Board:

The Planning Board discussed whether there is a need for a streetlight at the proposed

entrance to the Development Project, which may not be in keeping with the existing

neighborhood. A smaller photosensitive lighting treatment may be more suitable at the

entrance.

The Planning Board is very supportive of the Fire Department’s recommendation to install residential sprinklers within the project.

The vote was unanimous (4-0).

Mr. Hartmann rejoined the meeting.

BOA 3608 – Future Generation Wind LLC

Head of the Bay Road, Map 129, Lot 2B-1

The Board received the following documentation* for this review:

Staff report dated November 15, 2010

Response Letter from Atlantic Design Engineers, LLC dated November 17, 2010

Letter from Division of Fisheries and Wildlife Re: NHESP File No. 09-27388, dated June 16, 2010

Revised letter from Beals & Thomas, dated November 17, 2010

Comment letter from Plymouth Fire Department dated October 21, 2010

Comment letter from Plymouth Conservation Planner dated November 3, 2010

Comment letter from Plymouth Engineering Division dated October 25, 2010

Site Photographs

Letter from Division of Fisheries and Wildlife dated August 31, 2010

Site Plan entitled “Site Plans for the Future Generation Wind Plateau Project” (13 pages) dated September 23, 2010, prepared by Atlantic Design Engineers, LLC of Sandwich, Massachusetts (“Atlantic Design”).

Future Generation Wind Plateau Project entitled “Environmental Impact Statement” (30 pages) dated September 28, 2010, prepared by Atlantic Design.

Product Data Sheet, N100/2500 (2.5MW), “Nordex Turbine” (2 pages) dated 2009, prepared by Nordex AG, Norderstedt, Germany, provided to the Town of Plymouth by Atlantic Design.

Letter entitled “Determination of No Hazard to Air Navigation” (2 pages) dated April 20, 2010, prepared by Federal Aviation Administration of Fort Worth, Texas.

Aeronautics Division MassDOT File No.: 10-PYM-V0493-29 entitled “Request for Airspace Review” (2 pages) dated September 20, 2010, prepared by the Massachusetts Department of Transportation.

Future Generation Wind Plateau Project entitled “Shadow Flicker Analysis” (39 pages) dated September 28, 2010, prepared by Atlantic Design.

Future Generation Wind Plateau Project entitled “Acoustic Analysis” (40 pages) dated September 28, 2010, prepared by Atlantic Design.

Future Generation Wind Plateau Project entitled “Balloon Test & Photosimulation Report” (38 pages) dated September 28, 2010, prepared by Atlantic Design.

Future Generation Wind Plateau Project entitled “Capacity Factor Calculation” (1 page) dated August 26, 2010 and prepared by Atlantic Design.

“Cost Estimate for Turbine Removal/Decommissioning” letter (1 page) dated September 28, 2010 and prepared 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.

Beals & Thomas (Beals’), Future Generation Wind Plateau Project “Review Services for Future Generation Wind Plateau Project” (8 pages) dated November 10, 2010, submitted by Beal’s.

Commonwealth of Massachusetts, Division of Fisheries & Wildlife “Letter to Zoning Board of Appeals” dated August 31, 2010.

Zoning Board of Appeals “Petition Application” (1 page) dated October 7, 2010.

Department of Inspection Services, Town of Plymouth, Massachusetts “Zoning Permit Application” (1 page) dated September 9, 2010.

ZBA, Amended and Superseding Petition Application (Adding Request for Relief #2 in the Application) (1 page) dated November 2, 2010.

Letter from Attorney Robert C. Betters on behalf of the Petitioner dated November 3, 2010, listing various studies:

American Wind Energy Association and Canadian Wind Energy Association, Executive Summary “Wind Turbine Sound and Health Effects, an Expert Panel Review” (2 pages) dated December 2009.
American Wind Energy Association and Canadian Wind Energy Association, Executive Summary “Wind Turbine Sound and Health Effects, an Expert Panel Review” (68 pages) dated December 2009.
Ernest Orlando Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, Environmental Energy Technologies Division “The Impact of Wind Power Projects on Residential Property Values in the United States: A Multi-Site Hedonic Analysis” (10 pages) dated December 2009.
Ernest Orlando Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, Environmental Energy Technologies Division “The Impact of Wind Power Projects on Residential Property Values in the United States: A Multi-Site Hedonic Analysis” (162 pages) dated December 2009.
Ernest Orlando Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory “Response to the Critiques of the Industrial Wind Action Group and Mr. Albert Wilson on Berkeley Lab’s Research on the Possible Impact of Wind Energy Facilities on Residential Property Values” (10 pages) dated March 16, 2010.
Letter from Katherine A. Kiel, Associate Professor of Economics to Keith Mann, Future Generation, LLC regarding home values near wind turbines (3 pages) dated June 1, 2010.

Letter from Attorney Robert C. Betters on behalf of the Petitioner dated November 16, 2010, listing various studies:

Study entitled “Wind Farm Proximity and Property Values: A Pooled Hedonic Regression Analysis of Property Values in Central Illinois, 2010” (143 pages), authored by Jennifer L. Hinman, a graduate student in Illinois State University’s Department of Economics.
Summary of the study entitled “Wind Farm Proximity and Property Values: A Pooled Hedonic Regression Analysis of Property Values in Central Illinois, 2010” (1 page).
Web pages from the National Association of Realtors entitled “Field Guide to Wind Farms and their Effect on Property Values” (8 pages), updated October, 2010.

Atty. Robert Betters began the presentation for a special permit for wind energy facilities with a waiver of setback and/or other dimensional or similar requirements and/or other applicable provisions of the Bylaw (if needed) in order to construct one wind turbine tower on a site zoned RR. The petitioner was previously granted approval of three turbines on an adjacent property which has been appealed. A fourth turbine (#2) was withdrawn from the previous petition. The location of the turbine for this petition has been moved 400 ft. to the west from where it was originally proposed and will require a waiver of setback requirements as it has gone from a fall zone of 492 ft. from the property line owned by Mass Fisheries and Wildlife to 175 ft. Atty. Betters stated that the conditions outlined in the staff report are acceptable to the petitioner. He noted that suggested condition No. 4 has already been addressed in that the erosion control has already been detailed on the current plan.

Atty. Betters handed out copies of the previous decision (BOA Case 3584)* and read Paragraph 7 on page 14 into the record as follows:

Section 205-73E4 of the Bylaw requires a determination that the proposed structures will not in any way detract from the visual character or quality of the adjacent buildings, the neighborhood or the Town as a whole, and the Board of Appeals hereby makes that determination for purposes of this Petition. This standard must be considered and interpreted in light of this entire Section of the Bylaw, with its purpose of encouraging by Special Permit the use of wind energy.

It was never intended that wind energy facilities not be seen; that would be an impossible standard to meet. Accordingly, the mere visibility of wind energy facilities does not itself mean that the facilities will detract from the visual character or quality of the neighborhood or the Town. The Bylaw imposes specific limitations and requirements, such as height and setback requirements, to insure that turbines would be sited properly and would not detract from the neighborhood. As established in the materials presented by the Petitioner, and as specified in the Planning Board Report dated May 25, 2010, the Petitioner meets all of these requirements. In addition, other information considered by the Board of Appeals demonstrates that the proposed structures would not detract from the visual character or quality of the neighborhood or the Town. Photosimulations presented by the Petitioner, while indicating that the proposed structures would be partially visible at certain times and from certain locations, did not suggest to the Board of Appeals that the visibility of the structures would detract from the visual character or quality of the neighborhood or the Town. Studies showing the absence of statistically significant property value impacts from wind projects provide additional evidence that the proposed turbines would be a new, partially visible element in the neighborhood but would not detract from the visual character or quality of adjacent buildings, the neighborhood or the Town. Moreover, the site has been for many years not merely open space, but rather a working agricultural facility with heavy equipment, storage facilities, truck traffic, etc. Turbines would be another addition to the landscape and part of the overall agricultural mix. Moreover, as provided in Condition No. 4 below, the Petitioner has agreed to establish a $75,000 escrow to further enhance visual quality and character of the neighborhood.

Atty. Betters noted that Condition No. 4 which reads “The Petitioner has agreed to establish an escrow account with the Petitioner’s attorney in the amount of $75,000 prior to the initiation of construction of the turbines. Criteria for identification of the properties to participate in the escrow, and the amounts and type of mitigation to be implemented, shall be jointly developed by the Petitioner and the Town’s Planning Staff. Mitigation measures may include planting of trees/vegetative buffers, window treatments, and/or other effective measures. The properties to be included in the mitigation may consist of certain residences along Lake Drive, certain residences at the end of Morning Mist, and certain residences in the Bournehurst Estates area (as to properties in Bournehurst Estates, the nature and extent of mitigation would depend on whether Tower 5 is subsequently permitted).”

This is a voluntary fund, not required in the bylaw, but a commitment from the petitioner to the Town and abutting residents.

Larry Rosenblum asked what the nature of the fund would be.

Atty. Better replied that an escrow fund of $75,000 would be established prior to construction and would be monitored by the Planning Department and would be used for visual mitigation measures for certain residences.

Mr. Rosenblum asked if the funds are sufficient to meet the needs of the community.

Lee Hartmann stated that the condition is part of the approved permit, but we won’t know the impacts and whether the funds will be adequate until the turbines are constructed.

Richard Tabaczynski, Atlantic Design Engineers Inc., presented a plan* showing the relocation of the proposed turbine. The relocation increased the setbacks from the Bournehurst Drive with the closest residence being 1487 ft. away and decreased the setbacks to the property owned by Mass Fisheries and Wildlife to 175 ft. The relocation also decreased the setbacks to the residences on the opposite side of rte 25 on Shady Pine Lane. Mr. Tabaczynski presented plans showing the setbacks to the nearest residences in Plymouth and setbacks between turbines and residences in other areas of Massachusetts and Rhode Island. He also presented a plan showing the relationship of this turbine to the three previously approved turbines under BOA 3584.

Doug Sheadel, Modeling Specialties, presented an acoustical demonstration of the proposed sound levels. The noise levels are below the DEP requirement of a maximum increase of 10 dBA over the established ambient noise levels and below the 60 dBA level at the property line in the bylaw. He noted that the noise study was conservative and was based on the lowest ambient noise levels and the maximum turbine expected sound, which produces the greatest increase. The study overestimates the increase to noise levels. The lowest ambient level was 33 dBA at night time levels. The highest property line levels are 175 ft from the turbine at 53 dBA under the turbine. OSHA identifies 85 dBA as the threshold for protective equipment and the World Health Organization identifies 40 dBA as the level where there are no appreciated effects to the human body. They acknowledge that the sound generated by the turbine will be a rhythmic wooshing noise. The highest dBA at a residence would be a level of 41.

Marc Garrett noted that the sound level meter was at 37-38 dBA with the noise level in the room when no one was speaking and as the noise was increased, ranged up to 57 dBA.

Larry Rosenblum stated that the significant number is 41dBA at the closest residence.

Dr. Robert McCunney, an internist with a specialty in occupational medicine, research scientist at M.I.T. and a panelist with the American Wind Energy Association, stated that his expertise is in evaluating health implications of occupational hazards. The key issues are determining what the hazard is and what the effect on health is. The implications for a wind turbine are the effects of sound. Studies show that the key components in sound are the loudness and the pitch. The 41 dBA level of a wind turbine at the nearest residence is within the predicted range of 35-45 dBA near wind turbines. Comparisons of dBA levels would be a jet engine at 140; a rock band produces 110; tractors at 100; lawn mowers at 95; a vacuum cleaner at 85; a busy restaurant at 78; and normal conversation about 50-70. The risk of hearing impairment occurs if an individual is exposed to 80 dBA levels, eight hours per day, five days a week, for four years. There is no risk of hearing impairment with the sound levels of turbines. In studies in the Netherlands, a link has been established between annoyance and attitude. If an individual was opposed to the installation of wind turbines, their annoyance levels were higher. Dr. McCunney stated that “Wind Turbine Syndrome” with symptoms ranging from headaches, dizziness, sleep disturbance, and ringing in the ears is neither a new disease nor an accepted medical diagnosis. Dr. McCunney did note that annoyance can lead to sleep disturbance and prolonged sleep disturbance can lead to physiological issues.

Larry Rosenblum stated that annoyance is difficult to define and varies greatly among individuals. He stated that he could accept that the sound from turbines does not create a health hazard, but that annoyance levels were of concern as it could affect the quality of life of the surrounding neighbors. He felt that the benefits of this wind turbine are concentrated while the impacts will victimize people. He was concerned about protection of the community.

Carlos Pineda, Clear Planet Energy, reviewed economic and financial considerations of the proposed wind turbine project. The petitioner is attempting to create additional value from an agricultural property by investing in clean renewable energy while providing a more stable income for Mann Farms. There are a lot of fixed costs with the proposed development of a wind turbine project, therefore as the number of turbines decreases, the costs per turbine increase. Mr. Pineda stated there have been several studies regarding property values which tend to dip while the initial phases of construction are underway, but rebound once the project is completed.

Public Comment:

In Favor:

Gerry Ingersol; Gerry Palano, Mass Dept. of Agricultural Resources, Annette Herbst; Jeff Herbst, Justin; Jackson Gilman; David McGlinchy, Manomet Center for Conservation Sciences; and Monica Mann.

In Opposition:

Cully Gustafson; Jean Booth; Ray Burke; Helen Hapgood; Tom Booth; and Kay Turgeon.

Mr. Rosenblum stated that the problem remains that while there is a broad societal benefit to encourage non-carbon energy sources, there would be a negative impact on a select group of residents. Mr. Rosenblum suggested that the State Forest or off the coastline might be more appropriate locations for the siting of wind turbines.

Marc Garrett asked whether the relocation of the proposed turbine has made any difference to the neighbors.

Mr. Gufstafson stated that the proposed location is an improvement, but will still have a visual impact on the neighbors.

Dr. McCunney stated that in the Canadian lawsuit against the Mars Hill, Maine wind turbine project, the Court determined that a study by Dr. Nissenbaum that tried to correlate the relationship of negative health symptoms from the sound produced by the turbines was found inadmissible.

Bill Wennerberg asked for clarification on the location of the three turbines that have already been approved in relationship to the current proposal.

Mr. Tabaczynski reviewed the plan that showed the location of the four proposed turbines.

Paul McAlduff moved for the Board to recommend approval to the Zoning Board of Appeals; the vote was (2-2) with Larry Rosenblum and Bill Wennerberg in opposition.

Mr. Hartmann stated that staff will include the following suggested conditions in the Planning Board’s report:

The Petitioner shall submit written easement access or document the rights of access from properties owned by the Town of Plymouth, Kevin Lee Howie and Commonwealth Electric.

Line of Sight data shall be submitted by the Petitioner to include properties on Shady Pine Lane (south of the proposed turbine site, across Route 25).

The Petitioner agrees to limit vegetation disturbance during construction and will replant upon project completion, a number of trees that shall be shown on a final landscape plan which will be submitted to the Zoning Board of Appeals for approval.

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 Petitioner agrees to submit additional grading detail of the existing earth mound abutting Route 25.

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.

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.

The Petitioner shall address the concerns of the Town Engineer and the town’s engineering consultant’s (Beals’) punch-list of remaining items as they evolved through the public hearing process to the satisfaction of the Zoning Board of Appeals.

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.

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 Nordex N100 Wind Turbine system 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 Board took a short break.

Other Business:

B296 – Ponds at Plymouth – Lot Release

Paul McAlduff moved for the Board to approve and endorse a lot release for 125 Nathan Lane, (Lot 10P-1198) in the Ponds at Plymouth subdivision; the vote was unanimous (3-0). Mr. Rosenblum was not in the room.

BOA 3607 – Colony Place Development LLC (continued)

Colony Village Drive, Map 102, Lot 26-14

Atty. EdwardAngley explained to the Board that the petitioner is still waiting for a letter of support from Mass Highway. He also noted that the West Plymouth Steering Committee is supportive.

Patrick Farah stated that the Board did receive the requested information regarding the change in manufacturer and has added a condition to address the submission of the letter form Mass Highway.

Larry Rosenblum asked if the intent was to use the power generated for Colony Place and where the closest residence was located.

Don Smith stated that ideally they would sell the power to the tenants, but that may not be feasible. They are looking into other scenarios, but have not determined what would be economically feasible.

Atty. Angley stated that the nearest residences are off Route 80 and the Plymouth Mobile Estates.

Bill Wennerberg asked why the proponent is proposing the project if they are unsure if it will be economically feasible.

Mr. Smith replied that it is the right thing for the environment.

Public Comment:

In Favor:

None

In Opposition:

Alan Robbins

Paul McAlduff moved to recommend approval to the Zoning Board of Appeals subject to the following conditions:

Tower placement does not meet the Wind Energy Facilities Bylaw setback requirement of a distance equal to the overall height of the tower (301.8 feet) from the nearest lot line. The petitioner shall secure written authorization for portion of the fall zone within the Route 44 layout, owned by Massachusetts State Highway.

The Petitioner agrees to limit vegetation disturbance during construction and will replant upon project completion, a number of trees located on the final plans and shall be submitted to the Zoning Board of Appeals for approval.

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 Petitioner shall provide details with regard to proposed drainage retention area grading and verify impacts to existing stormwater basin.

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 receptor locations within the 30-52 hour zone shown graphically on the Shadow Flicker Impact in the analysis report specified above (Submitted Documents, Item 6), the Petitioner will implement measures to reduce the flicker for those residences below thirty (30) hours/year. Such measures may include planting of trees/vegetative buffers, window treatments, operational measures and/or other effective measures and shall be submitted to the Zoning Board of Appeals by the Petitioner.

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 and the town’s engineering consultant’s (Beals’) punch-list of any remaining items as they evolve through the public hearing process to the satisfaction of the Zoning Board of Appeals.

If the Unison U54 Wind Turbine system 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 an alternate turbine. The Zoning Board of Appeals shall determine if the alternative system is comparable and does not exceed the originally submitted specifications.

The vote was unanimous (4-0).

Paul McAlduff moved to adjourn at 10:48 p.m.; the vote was unanimous (4-0).

Documents* handed out during the meeting:

West Plymouth Steering Committee Minutes of October 20, 2010

Fax from Manomet Ponds LLC for Case No. 3232, dated November 22, 2010

e-mail from Peggy and Ray Burke with copy of testimony of Jim Liedell regarding the Bourne New Generation Wind project.

e-mail form Peggy and Ray Burke with articles regarding Bat Fatality Rate due to wind turbines

Copy of the Plymouth Zoning Board of Appeals Decision for Case No. 3584

*On file with the Office of Planning and Development in project case files.

Respectfully Submitted,

Eileen M. Hawthorne Approved:December 20, 2010

Administrative Assistant