These minutes are not verbatim – they are the secretary’s interpretation of what took place at the meeting. – Open Meeting Law, G.L. c. 30A § 22.
Board Members: Marc Garrett, Paul McAlduff, Larry Rosenblum, Bill Wennerberg, and Tim Grandy
Planning Board Alternate: Ken Buechs
Staff Members: Patrick Farah
Recording Secretary: Eileen Hawthorne
Administrative Notes:
Minutes:
January 9, 2012
Form A Plans:
A4409 – N/L Real Estate Trust, Nelson Street, Map 10, Lot 30 (1.61 A) – Divide lot into lots 30-1 (23,465 SF) and 30-2 (46,286 SF)
Larry Rosenblum moved to approve the Minutes of January 9, 2012* as presented and the Board determined that Form A plan A4409* was entitled to endorsement; the vote was unanimous (5-0).
ZBA 3655 – Cindy Tavares, 27 Robert J Way, Map 83, Lot 23-37 – Special Permit for Recreational use in LI Zone in an existing building (2/1)
The Board received the following documentation* for the review of this case:
Staff report dated January 24, 2012
Unofficial property record card for 083-023-037-001
Board of Appeals Decision Case No. 3354
Locus Map and Photograph
As Built Plan for 27 Robert J Way
Larry Rosenblum asked whether the building had a sprinkler system and whether any occupancy limits are associated with the proposed use. Mr. Rosenblum was concerned that there is an existing vehicle repair facility in the same building which may have flammable materials.
John Femino, owner of the building, explained that there is no sprinkler system in the building, but there is a monitored fire alarm system and double 2-hour fire wall between the existing automotive repair business and the proposed party space.
Tim Grandy moved for the Board to recommend approval to the Zoning Board of Appeals subject to the following conditions:
No retail sales are proposed or intended at this time and consequently retails sales are not allowed under this special permit.
The building must meet all life safety measures and fire protection requirements of the current Massachusetts Building Codes as interpreted by the Building Department and the Fire Department.
The vote was unanimous (5-0).
Conceptual Review:
Fieldstone Way VOSD
The Board received the following documentation* for the review of this case:
Staff report
Unofficial Property Record Cards for 027-000-030A-019 and 027-000-032-000
Preliminary Site Plan dated December 30, 2011
Plan for previously approved ZBA Case 3045 – 4 Unit LIP under Chapter 40B
Locus Map
Atty. John Wyman began the presentation of a conceptual review for a Village Open Space Development on Map 27, Lots 30A-19 and 32. Lot 32 was previously approved for a 4 unit LIP under Chapter 40B. The combined parcels could support eight units under a VOSD. The proposed project includes an existing single family home on Lot 30A-19 with open space areas and three single family homes with separate driveways on individual lots with open space areas on Lot 32.
Gus Diodato explained that he prefers to abandon the LIP project as it created a project with a lot of asphalt and no buffering for neighbors. He prefers to create a VOSD with a total of four units and open space buffers. The site will be serviced by Town sewer and water. The existing single family home will remain and three new units will be constructed on Braley Lane.
Larry Rosenblum asked if there would be any changes to the existing looped driveway that services existing homes on Fieldstone Way.
Mr. Diodato replied that he does not propose any changes to the existing looped driveway.
Tim Grandy asked if the plan has been presented to the appropriate steering committee.
Mr. Diodato replied that he has not presented it to a steering committee as the plan is just conceptual.
Marc Garrett commented that the fragmented open space works on this site and he was supportive of the reduction in units and preservation of fields.
Paul McAlduff was also supportive of the concept.
The Board looks forward to further review of the project once a formal filing has been submitted.
ZBA 3654 – Associated Wind Developers LLC
143 Hedges Pond Road, Map 55, Lots 52A-1 and 52B
Special Permit subject to EDC for a wind facility
The Board received the following documentation* for the review of this case:
Staff report dated January 4, 2012
FAA comments dated January 9, 2012
Supplemental Photosimulation Report dated January 9, 2012
e-mail from Warner Eldredge dated January 17, 2012
Request for continuation date December 12, 2011
Staff report dated December 8, 2011
Beals & Thomas comments dated December 7, 2011
Letter from Atlantic Design dated December 7, 2011
Comments from Town Engineer dated December 7, 2011
Letter from Plymouth Airport Commission dated December 7, 2011
Memo from Conservation Planner dated November 29, 2011
Letter from Atlantic Design dated December 6, 2011
Overall site plan dated November 3, 2011
Master Sight Line Vicinity Plan dated November 3, 2011
Locus Map and Site Photographs
Area of Disturbance Plan
Aeronautica Windpower Product Specifications
Associated Wind Developers Q & A information
Associated Wind Developers newsletter November, 2011
e-mail from Winnifred Dassman dated November 21, 2011
FAA Comments dated March 14, 2011
US DOT Obstruction Marking and Lighting Report
Mass DOT comments dated October 17, 2011
Capacity Factor Calculations dated October 27, 2011
Letter from Atlantic Design dated November 3, 2011
Letter from Atlantic Design dated November 29, 2011
Letter from Modeling Specialties dated November 18, 2011
Acoustical Analysis Report
Balloon Test and Photosimulation Report
Shadow Flicker Analysis Report
Site Plans dated November 3, 2011
Handouts:
Letter from Atlantic Design dated January 20, 2012
Capacity Factor Calculations with engineer stamp received January 23, 2012
Estimated U.S. Energy Use in 2009 Chart
Marc Garrett explained the procedure for the evening.
Tim Grandy recused himself and joined the audience.
Atty. Edward Angley introduced the proponents, Brian Kuhn and Matt Damon, Associated Wind Developers, and Simon Thomas, Atlantic Design Engineers.
Brian Kuhn presented the plan for a single wind turbine on property owned by Jeannine Anderson Realty Trust, Map 55, Lots 52A-1 and 52B, 143 Hedges Pond Road. The single turbine will be smaller in stature (302 ft.) than the two that were proposed under ZBA Case. No. 3606 (480 ft.). The location of the proposed turbine will be 1052 ft. from the nearest residence. Mr. Kuhn presented photo simulations of several locations that detailed the expected visibility of the turbine. Flicker has been minimized and the machine can be programmed to shut down if a flicker potential exists. The Turbine will produce enough electricity to supply approximately 254 homes with sustainable power and save approximately 1,200 tons of CO2 gasses. The acoustical analysis shows that there will be a 2 db increase in sound to the
nearest residence. A balloon test was held on December 31, 2011 and community outreach was accomplished through a meeting with abutting neighborhoods at Indian Brook School and through newsletters that were distributed to neighbors. The proposed project has also been reviewed and is supported by the Energy Committee and the Cedarville Steering Committee.
Paul McAlduff asked if the Town could purchase credits from the project in order for the new high school to obtain a higher LEED certification.
Mr. Kuhn stated that the Town could purchase energy credits as long as it is in the NSTAR service area.
Patrick Farah noted that the draft staff report was updated to reflect the proposed location of the turbine. Mr. Farah also noted that the values submitted on the capacity factor information sheet have been certified by the project engineer. Conditions require that a proof of bond must be presented to the Board of Appeals prior to the issuance of any building permits.
Marc Garrett asked for clarification of No. 6 under the Recommendation portion of the staff report regarding the sale of energy produced.
Mr. Kuhn replied that all or a portion of the energy credits could be sold to the Town, the energy is not proposed for onsite use. All the electrons produced go into the “grid” and credits can be purchased. The power credits and investment opportunity has been offered to the neighbors.
Ken Buechs asked if the energy credits would be fixed.
Mr. Kuhn replied that the credits would be 10 percent increases for five years.
Public Comment:
In favor:
Jim Lake, Mike Mulligan, Bob Stott, Tammy DiFiore, and Jeff Luce.
In Opposition:
Michelle Angelides, Jose DeSilva, Don Boyden, Amanda Hanson, Cheryl Newell, George Corvair, Nate McMinn, Kerry Kearney, Lee Burns, Patrick and Donna Griffin, Holly Alberti-Evans, Martin Wood, and Ray Hargatt. Their concerns included visibility, lighting, flicker, and noise of the turbine, inappropriate location, decreased property values, and insufficient information on capacity factor.
Steven Anderson, maintenance keeper of the cranberry bogs, stated that his family is in support of the project because it will help them stay a viable part of the community. –Atty. Angley concluded the presentation by stating that the project meets the criteria of the bylaw.
Bill Wennerberg agreed that clean energy is necessary and although the project meets the criteria of the bylaw, if it is detrimental to the neighborhood, it is not appropriate. Mr. Wennerberg was not supportive.
Larry Rosenblum encouraged the proponent to take a closer look at those impacted by turbines.
Paul McAlduff was supportive of the proposed project.
Marc Garrett was supportive of the proposed project and suggested adding a condition that would require annual reporting of the capacity factor to the Planning Board.
Mr. Kuhn stated that the capacity factor is based on a long term average.
Paul McAlduff moved for the Board to recommend approval to the Zoning Board of Appeals subject to the following conditions:
The Petitioner shall provide correct sizing details of the proposed stormwater infiltration area.
The Petitioner agrees to limit disturbance of vegetation during construction and will loam and seed upon project completion at locations determined, based on submitted landscaping plans and consultation with Zoning Board of Appeals.
The proposed 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.
The Petitioner will implement measures to reduce or eliminate shadow flicker for affected residences as needed. 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.
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, prior to issuance of building permits, 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 205-73 D (10) of the Bylaw. The amount shall include a mechanism for a Cost of Living Adjustment after ten (10) and fifteen (15) years. Proof of surety shall be presented to the Zoning Board of Appeals informally.
The Petitioner shall submit to the Planning Board annually a report stating the wind turbine’s current and historical to-date operating capacity factor (actual production/theoretical nameplate production) along with additional documentation as to the average annual wind speed recorded at the site during the reporting year, and how this average compares to the long term average annual wind speed used to calculate the submitted estimated Capacity Factor.
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 Petitioner shall address the concerns of the Town Engineer and the town’s engineering consultant (Beals’) punch-list of remaining items as they evolved through the public hearing process 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 Aeronautica, Model 54-750 Wind Turbine System or a comparable turbine not exceeding the relevant specifications of the Aeronautica 54-750 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 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 vote was (3-1) with Bill Wennerberg in opposition.
The Board took a five-minute recess.
Other Business:
“Topics not reasonably anticipated by the Chair 48 hours in advance of the meeting.”
Discussion (cont.)
1820 Courthouse Update
Marc Garrett stated that he received an e-mail requesting that the Board address three issues regarding the 1820 Courthouse. Mr. Garrett stated that he would not comment on the issues that involve staff at this time, but would open the discussion for on whether the Planning Board would support the creation of the corridor concept plan for the 1820 Courthouse area.
Paul McAlduff commented that the restoration of the Simes house in Manomet will be funded in part by several fund raisers that include selling Christmas ornaments, T-shirts, and a fishing tournament and he thought that the courthouse could benefit from some creative fund raising. Mr. McAlduff stated that he is a member of the National Park Service and they have limited funding and are looking for donations. He noted that the Adams National House in Quincy was donated to the National Park Service by the family. He noted that the National Park Service was not interested in participating in a small project at Plymouth Rock. Mr. McAlduff stated that a request for additional funding for rehabilitation of the Cura Building was not supported by Town Meeting and the building was sold for $600,000. The 2006 master plan
calls for a new town hall, senior center, school administration building, and DPW facility, but there is not enough funding to complete these projects. He was concerned that the 1820 Courthouse project will never be finished. He questioned whether the three homeowners in the middle of the town owned properties will agree to sell. He stated that the 1740 Courthouse was of more historical significance than the 1820 Courthouse.
Larry Rosenblum stated that the Simes house answers a need to create a center for Manomet and was a gift. The 1820 Courthouse is the center of the downtown of Plymouth and the courthouse corridor has historical, architectural and aesthetic value. He stated that money spent on the courthouse will be an investment. This project will be a public/private partnership and will be developed in phases. Mr. Rosenblum stated that the key to make it work is to think it through in advance, determine the type of uses, and find a suitable partner. It is a unique opportunity to create a tourist destination. He noted that a conditional agreement will have to be supported by the existing homeowners.
Tim Grandy was supportive of creating the corridor concept plan. Mr. Grandy stated that the community, Board of Selectmen, Precinct Chairs, Town Meeting representatives and CPC needs to be involved in the creation of the plan.
Bill Wennerberg stated that the Town needs to have contingencies in place with the land owners. He agreed that the Town should participate in creating an overlay district to make the project more attractive to a developer.
Ken Buechs stated that he was supportive of moving forward with the corridor concept plan. Mr. Buechs felt that the PRA should be actively seeking funding from other sources as the town, state and federal entities have limited funds available.
Marc Garrett suggested that the Planning Board should make some determination regarding support for the corridor concept plan. He noted that there is some Town owned land in the area that is currently not under the control of the PRA. He felt that corridor should include both publicly and privately held lands.
Tim Grandy moved for the Planning Board to support the corridor concept plan utilizing public and privately held land.
Marc Garrett amended the motion for the Board to support “a” corridor concept with public and private lands for potential redevelopment.
The Board agreed to the amendment to the motion.
The vote was 5-0.
Marc Garrett announced that the Chamber of Commerce is hosting a workshop on February 1, 2012 regarding Roberts Rules which he will be attending.
Tim Grandy moved to adjourn at 10:25 p.m.; the vote was unanimous (5-0).
*On file with the Office of Planning and Development in project case files.
Respectfully Submitted,
Eileen Hawthorne Approved: February 6, 2012
Administrative Assistant
| 
