We have all seen it before -the “bread and milk” index displayed on local news forecasts and store shelves emptied of non-perishables, while “Winter Storm Warning in Effect” flashes on electronic screens along the highway. Any seasoned New Englander knows to fill the tub and grab the generator fuel and have the snow shovels and blowers at the ready. They also often have the familiar cold-weather New England “yard-sculpture” -a perfectly curated log-pile stacked neatly somewhere near the house. Winter storms are obviously common events mastered by New Englanders for generations, but perhaps it might be worth taking a look as to what exactly cooks up these infamous storm’s we call nor’easters.
The term nor’easter is fairly common in winter weather vernacular and refers to strong areas of low pressure along the U.S. East Coast featuring winds that move in from the northeast off the Atlantic Ocean. These storms are most usually associated with winter and snowstorms as they are most common and strongest between September and April, but nor’easters are possible year-round, as long as a low-pressure system fits the criteria. Just as no two snowflakes are alike, no nor’easters are exactly alike, but they can usually be sorted into categories, named after the researcher who came up with the system in 1946, J.E. Miller. Although not every nor’easter is a Miller System storm, the majority of them can be classified as such. There are five categories of Miller System storms, Types A-B-C-D-E, but the majority of storms fall into the Miller Type-A and Type-B categories.
To over-simplify and provide a quick visual of what pressure systems do, consider that high pressure is literally that -downward gravitational pressure that suppresses storm development -a lid, if you will, keeping things contained. Storms need the ability to ascend into the atmosphere and interact, with little restraint, with moisture and air masses to become significant. High pressure keeps all of that fun in check. Low pressure, however, means the “lid” is off and the atmospheric mayhem is allowed to commence and storms develop. The placement of high-and-low pressure systems also act as buffers that create pathways to guide and set the track for storms -much like the bumper pads on a bowling lane. Now that you have a visual of pressure systems, let’s talk about the Miller Systems.
The first Miller category, Type-A, includes nor’easters that primarily develop near the Gulf Coast or East Coast along an old cold front or the boundary between marine and land air masses. These types of nor’easters are considered “classic” nor’easters. For a Miller Type-A system to develop, high pressure must be in place near the eastern Great Lakes and a stationary boundary of low pressure is usually stationed off the southeast coast. This low-pressure line allows the cold, northern air mass to travel down and mix with the warmer air mass from the coast. This causes a system to develop. This growing storm system will then ride the buffered track up the east coast. By the time it reaches New England it is usually a significant system with a lot of moisture which usually falls as heavy snow.
Miller Type-B nor’easters are a bit more flamboyant with their wintry party as they tend to gift the inland states with blizzards and ice storms that make headlines and give headaches. Low pressure develops over the plains and rushes eastward. These systems approach the Northeast from the west, often through the Ohio Valley, bringing precipitation and ice to the Midwest on their journey. As with Miller Type-A storms, there is a delineation between rain and snow, but this time it’s more of a north-south split, rather than an inland-coastal split.
One thing that is unique to Miller Type-B systems is that they get a bit jumbled when they hit the Appalachian Mountains. The change in elevation and flow of terrain causes the initial low-pressure system to weaken as the central pressure goes up to accommodate the mountains, but this sets the stage for the low to then redevelop on the eastern side of the mountain range. This process is also known as a “center-jump.” Regardless of this momentary hop over the mountains, Miller Type-B systems are undeterred in unleashing a bit of chaos as they travel.
Sometimes, a nor’easter comes in the package of an Alberta Clipper System. Alberta clippers are another common type of winter storm, but only occasionally fall into the category of a nor’easter. An Alberta Clipper is a fast-moving area of low pressure that moves southeastward out of the Canadian Province of Alberta, through the Plains and Midwest. This type of winter storm qualifies as a nor’easter *if* it follows the path of a Miller Type-B storm and eventually reaches the East Coast to cause the northeasterly winds coming off the Atlantic Ocean that are required to classify a storm as a nor’easter.
Each nor’easter system can have various types of precipitation depending on where it is on its developmental journey. Initially, all the precipitation from a nor’easter falls as snow due to the low pressure allowing high (freezing cold!) atmospheric development. It can stay snow if it does not encounter a warm air mass on its way down. If it does encounter warm air, a few things can happen. First off, if the warm air mass is dense and stretches to the surface of the earth, you will have rain. If the warm air mass over a part of land is less dense, and there is an underlying horizontal line of cold air again before the precipitation hits the ground, you can have refreezing which results in either freezing rain or sleet. For freezing rain, the cold air mass above the ground has to be thicker and a more intense temperature change, and for sleet the cold air mass above the ground has to be thinner and with less a temperature change so the freezing is less instantaneous.
Be it a Miller System or an Alberta Clipper, nor’easters have long been commonplace due to the natural weather patterns in this part of the world, but they have made headlines and become local lore since we started recording weather events and collecting data on them. Some of the most notable nor’easters (that many readers are sure to recall first-hand) are:
The Great Blizzard of 1888. This monster storm dropped up to 58 in. of snow in some areas and drifts as high as 50 ft. The blizzard lasted three days. The impacted areas were centered in New York City.
The Storm of the Century in 1950. This nor’easter slammed from New Jersey northward and caused $70 million in storm damage. Variants from 33-62 in. of snow were left behind as well as downed lines and trees from 60 mph winds.
The Ash Wednesday Storm of 1962. The Ash Wednesday Storm lasted from March 5-9 and left destruction from Florida to New England and some places, such as Ocean City, under 4 ft. of water. It also caused mayhem with 70 mph winds and 42 in. of snow.
The Northeastern United States Blizzard of 1978. This infamous, deadly blizzard left todays equivalent of $1.85 billion dollars in damage. Over 10,000 cars were left stranded after a two-day white-out buried the seaboard from Philadelphia to Boston in 27 in. of snow and reached hurricane-force winds.
Storm of the Century 1993. What started as a nor’easter in March 1993 ended as a disaster dubbed the “Storm of the Century.” This record-breaking nor’easter was the result of a rare catastrophe when three massive, and separate, weather systems unexpectedly mingled over the Gulf of Mexico. This combo from Hades affected states along the East Coast, from Florida to Maine, as well as interior states that didn’t often feel the effects of powerful nor’easters. $Six billion dollars in damage and up to 56 in. of snow in some areas.
The Nor’easter of 2016. This damaging weather event spanned two days across the mid-Atlantic and up into the Northeast and left behind 36-52 in. of snow in some areas. In addition to the heavy snow, there were 85 mph wind gusts and six tornadoes spawned as it traveled up the coast.
There are many more famous nor’easters to learn about and many more to come and experience first-hand. Given what you now know about the Miller System, perhaps you can spend your snowy days the next few weeks reading about the famous blizzards and figuring out which Miller-Type each of them was. You should also be able to identify the types of blizzards forthcoming. Don’t forget to make sure that in addition to learning about these weather systems, you are preparing adequately for them -but here in New England, where nor’easters are as much a part of life as lobster rolls and Dunkin’, you hardly need a reminder from this Utah-born and raised transplant. Stay safe and warm, readers!

The Plympton Zoning Board of Appeals met for a pubic hearing on Jan. 14 at 6:30 p.m. at the Plympton Town House. Secretary Ethan Stiles opened the hearing with ZBA Chair, Suzanne Jafferian, Alternate Member, David Alberti, and Town Council, Carloyn Murray in attendance. The applicant, Peter Opachinski of SLT Construction was joined by Brad McKenzie of McKenzie Engineering Group, Inc. and Attorney Robert Galvin of Galvin and Galvin PC.
The first matter of business was to address the Cease and Desist Order issued Nov. 10th, 2025 for SLT Construction for illegal earth removal operations at the assessor’s parcel M19-B2-L4 without a permit. This Cease and Desist Order was issued by Plympton Zoning Enforcement Officers Kathleen Cannizzo and Thomas Millias. Due to this order not being included on the night’s agenda as an oversight, the issue was postponed until the next hearing on Feb. 4, 2026. This is the second Cease and Desist Order issued by the Plympton Zoning Enforcement officers and the third violation of stormwater regulations as well as a history of wetland violations across the state by SLT Construction.
The next matter of business was the presentation of four hydrogeology peer reviewers that Gregory Driscoll, of JDE Civil, Inc. would be working with on behalf of the town of Plympton. The four proposals received were: Scott Horsley, Principal of Horsley Witten Group at $6,600-7,600.00, GEI Consultants at $12,000.00, Haley and Aldrich at $15,000.00, and RMA Geo-Environmental at $14,776. Due to the time frame compatibility of the proposal from GEI Consultants, the board selected GEI as the proposed peer reviewer of the hydrogeology report with RMA Geo-Environmental as the back-up plan should GEI be unable to keep the needed timeline.
Once the hydrogeology peer reviewer was selected, Stiles moved the hearing into a review of outstanding department head comments concerning the Ricketts Pond project. Zoning Board Alternate Dave Alberti asked to be allowed to present a compilation of questions he had for SLT Construction. “Some of these have already been covered, but these are items people have come to me with or we’ve had here on the floor during our discussions or out on the street with people…” Alberti noted, “I compiled what I had myself as well and there are about a dozen questions.” Alberti presented the questions in hard copy as well as via projection on the screen in the room.
The first question Alberti had was concerning a timeline for SLT Construction to estimate the project to be completed and how long they anticipated it to have the subdivision fully occupied. Galvin responded on behalf of SLT Construction, “Assuming we are given the permit allowing us to commence construction immediately, there is also a given period of site work, we would proceed to construct buildings as soon as possible. It’s likely to take more than a year, possibly two years, to complete construction, but we would proceed diligently to complete construction,” Galvin assured that if there were environmental or economic issues, a permit extension would be sought after. Town Council, Murray added that the permit issued would be good for three years, so it would likely already compliment to the proposed construction timeline, but extensions could be granted if needed.
The second question presented by Alberti addressed if the town was protected if construction was, for some reason, left incomplete. “I am trying to address things that could happen -though it’s unlikely it will,” Alberti pointed out. Galvin replied that in order for an occupancy certificate to be obtained, construction would have to be completed to the level that the planning board would normally say is adequate -for fire and safety access and water and septics would have to be completed…our expectation, you know, is that we will proceed expeditiously and diligently to complete the project.” Galvin added, “But the infrastructure, which is most important to you all, is going in first.”
Stiles then asked about the building permits and occupancy certificates and if they would be given individually to each duplex or bundled together. Opachinski replied, “My thoughts are to do like four duplexes at a time -so if the first two sold, then we would start another two, but a lot of that would depend on how the bank structures my construction loan.” Opachinski continued, “They are not going to loan all the money at one time to complete all 60 units -they will put a limit on it and it will be incremental over, say, a three year period, but the site will be neat and clean, the road will be done, and it’s just a matter of digging foundations and putting foundations in at that point.”
The third point of concern presented by Alberti was about oversight in monitoring the construction site and project adherence to compliance and safety. “Your engineer will monitor the construction to determine that it’s built in accordance with approved plans and code compliance, and we won’t be issued a building permit unless we can show them a plan that’s compliant with the state building code,” Galvin explained, “Your building inspector or building commissioner will determine building code compliance.” He then stated that SLT Construction would be funding the construction monitor, which was likely to be Driscoll.
Stiles then asked for clarification about what would happen if there was a compliance issue or confusion on the plans with the project or an issue raised by the construction monitor to which the reply was that SLT Construction would then approach the board and ask for a meeting to clarify and amend as needed. Galvin also assured that Driscoll’s firm would take the role of making sure that the work being done was in compliance with permits and plans. The board expressed collective relief to know that this measure of oversight was going to be in place. “That is super encouraging to me,” Jafferian commented, “To know that there are other boards and inspections and people in place to make sure -we don’t have to run down there all the time -it’s not all on us. I wasn’t sure how that was going to work -and I didn’t want ‘Oh you can just run’ with no checks and balances.”
The fourth point Alberti presented concerned the issue of needing visual and sound barriers for residents of the Ricketts Pond Estates due to its close proximity the Route 44. Opachinski responded that there are still some trees left after their removal years ago, and a chain-link fence for separation and an actual roadway to serve as a “pretty good” buffer. Stiles suggested that other parts of Route 44 do have concrete buffers along developments, to which Opachinski interjected, “It’s a great place for graffiti -no thank you.”
Next to address was addressing the maintenance of the stormwater management systems and operation and if that was the towns responsibility, or that of the HOA. McKenzie replied, “There will be a homeowners association that will be responsible for maintaining all infrastructure of the subdivision -the roadway, catch basin, and maintenance of the storm water facilities.” He continued, “Part of what we submitted to Mr. Driscoll for review of the drainage report was not only the construction phase of operation of the maintenance plan, but a long-term operation maintenance plan for the storm water system. There are reporting responsibilities and requirements from the states’ stormwater management regulations via the HOA.”
Stiles followed by asking for clarification about the proposed structure of the homeowner’s association for the Ricketts Pond subdivision. The proposed structure is a two-level management system with one level as the residents of each duplex, and the second level as the overarching level that maintains the common grounds of the subdivision. McKenzie replied, “Each lot is a sperate owner. The owner is a condo association because there are multiple units on each lot. It’s really no different than a conventional, definitive subdivision except you have multi-family units on each lot, and each lot is its own condominium association.”
McKenzie then explained the overarching HOA, “Overarching is the HOA responsible not for the maintenance of the lots, but for the maintenance of the right-of-way -which contains the stormwater management systems and common areas.” Opachinski then added that SLT Construction would be responsible for overall maintenance until enough of the subdivision was occupied to transfer that responsibility.
Stiles then inquired about the transference of ownership maintenance. “A certain amount of ownership then gets divested from the developer once a certain level of occupancy is reached.” Galvin pointed out that this transference can be flexible, “We want to maintain control for as long as possible to make sure it gets maintained… I have seen it done up to the last lot -you can do it when it reaches 75% occupancy, but it’s in the developers best interest to maintain control as long as possible.” Opachinski added, “We just did a 34 unit in Kingston and we didn’t turn it over until the last house was occupied,” which he explained took about three years.
The sixth item on Alberti’s list of questions raised the topic of the egress into Carver from the cul-de-sac. He asked if there was yet a planned roadway or escape or access. McKenzie pointed out that this area is private property and they don’t have legal authority or access to make decisions about the access point that is in Carver’s boundaries. Stiles asked about the possibility of a tunnel or overpass that would go under Route 44 to allow easier emergency access to the subdivision, but the idea was struck down due to the unlikelihood of the state granting permission for such a big project and the high cost.
Alberti asked the question then be addressed by attending Plympton Fire Prevention Captain, John Sjostedt. Sjostedt said that SLT Construction had a valuable meeting with the Plympton Fire and Police Department heads the day prior about emergency access to the subdivision. “I went down to Solar Circle and accessed the property from there, and with very minimal work we could have access for emergency vehicles.” He noted that the road existed currently to provide access to the solar project there, but it would be used for emergency vehicle access to Ricketts Pond as well.
Alberti moved to the next topic about a drawing of several units presented on plans from July 25 of 2025 that are no longer included in the current plans. They had initially indicated the units that were deemed affordable housing units. McKenzie inspected the map on the projector screen and pointed out that the document from July was prepared by Delphic Associates, LLC., and not part of SLT’s proposed plan.
The topic of renting out units was next up for discussion. The question posed was, “IS the owner of a single unit or a number of units able to rent out the dwellings as an absentee landlord?” Murray interjected that for the affordable housing units, it was required to have an eligible-income purchaser and there will be deed restrictions that require the unit be occupied by the eligible-income purchaser. Galvin said that they would not allow short-term rentals, but long-term rentals would be acceptable.
Alberti then asked about the enforcement of the regulation of keeping occupancy limit of each unit at two people per bedroom. “That is actually illegal and considered discrimination against families to enforce an occupancy limit,” Galvin explained. Stiles commented that if am issue arose with something in terms of sanitation due to overcrowding, then the Board of Health would be the ones to get involved. McKenzie clarified that the “two-persons per bedroom limit” was only drawn up by the state to regulate what constitutes the need for public water supply -which would be 25 people using one well -something far out of the planned threshold of the Ricketts Pond project.
The following topics presented covered the concern about the town of Plympton being covered in the event of a failing of the subdivision, and if the HOA’s established therein would serve the best interests of not only the subdivision, but the town. Galvin explained, “Each lot will have its own condominium association, and that will have a lot of authority to impose fees, and fines, and collect money to make sure the infrastructure is taken care of.” He went on to explain that all of the condominium associations would then form a home-owners association that would take care of street, drainage, and all facilities. Each lot would get one vote in relation to HOA policies and they will each disperse the management of their fees.
Stiles pointed out that if each lot gets one vote, that is uneven for lots that have more units on them. “That would mean that the voting of one lot with one house on it would have double the weight of a lot with two houses on it.” Galvin assured that the voting weight gets distributed because a majority of 80% vote is needed to approve or change anything. Stiles concluded that the Zoning Board has no jurisdiction over how the HOA is formed and run, but they were expected to act in the best interest of the town once formed.
Concluding the questions posed by Alberti, there was a question from a resident in attendance who asked Sjostedt if the emergency access to the subdivision would be lost if the solar farm ceased to exist. Sjostedt said that he was fairly confident access would still be possible as emergency response allowances are very liberal. “They will do whatever is necessary to get to a fire,” Galvin assured.
McKenzie brought up the discussion with the Plympton Emergency Response teams the day before. “The letters were somewhat confusing as to what was required of us in terms of the requirements for water storage capacity in the cisterns. And what we heard was that she would require two cisterns or one cistern and automatic sprinklers for each unit. We are in the process of assessing those costs.”
In addition to clarification of the letters from the Fire and Police Departments, was the issue of street parking possibly blocking emergency vehicles access. SLT presented their remedy for these issues in the form of “No Parking” signs alongside the road, and a twenty-car parking lot for visitors to the subdivision. In addition, the safety measure of placing cisterns no further than 900ft away from a unit and each cistern holding the required 30,000 gallons of water, each, pacified both parties and their questions. The meeting was adjourned shortly after and the date for the next public hearing is February 4 at 6:30 p.m. at the Plympton Town Hall. We, at the Express, continue to encourage public participation in these hearings -especially pertaining to issues determining the future of our unique town. For more information on the Ricketts Pond Estates 40B Project, please visit the town website: https://www.town.plympton.ma.