The Plympton Zoning Board held a public hearing on July 29 for the proposed Ricketts Pond Estates 40B development. Suzanne Jafferian, ZBA Chairman, opened the hearing along with her zoning board members Ethan Stiles, David Alberti, and Lukasz Kowalski. The applicant, Peter Opachinski of SLT Construction, who is proposing a 60-unit housing development in the Ricketts Pond area, was represented in the hearing by Paul Cusson of Delphic Associates, LLC.
The meeting began with the zoning board recapping that they had selected their peer reviewing engineer, Gregory Driscoll, Principal Engineer at JDE Civil, Inc. and that they anticipated a presentation from the representative of McKenzie Engineering, the engineering group on the development team for the Ricketts Pond Estates, during the hearing per previous discussion at the last hearing. When the floor was given to begin the presentation, however, Cusson explained that there would not be a presentation. He said their understanding was a bit different from the zoning boards requests.
Cusson said they had submitted plans, including a storm water management plan, to be reviewed by the ZBA consulting engineer, Driscoll, and that they hoped to be able to respond to the review as that was the main purpose of the night’s hearing. Cusson also assured that the applicant had made the deposit for peer review by Driscoll, but there didn’t seem to be any point in a complex, detailed engineering presentation because Driscoll had not yet been given authorization to proceed on his peer review report. This meant that the applicant’s engineer from McKenzie had nothing to respond to and therefore the anticipated presentation for the evening would not take place.
Ethan Stiles responded in an attempt to address this discrepancy. Stiles said that he did, indeed, receive the deposit check from SLT for the peer review cost per Driscoll, and that he took it to the town treasurer to deposit into a 53G account, and that the ZBA would review the bills via Driscoll and pay out the deposit amount bit by bit as the bills came in, but he admitted that perhaps this was not how the deposit was supposed to be paid out. Stiles asked town council, Carolyn Murray, to clarify if this was how Driscoll was supposed to be paid for his services, amounting to $15,000.00, rather than paying out the entire sum at once. Murray confirmed that payments were, in fact, to be made from the 53G account for this project as bills came in rather than all at once.
Driscoll then responded saying that he had received and signed the contract from the town but was waiting for deposit money to be paid out to begin the peer review. Driscoll said that he would have his bookkeeper send an invoice to the town to get the process moving along. Murray confirmed that once the contract was signed by Driscoll a portion of the deposit should have been paid to Driscoll so the peer review could begin, but said that having an invoice from JDE Civil, Inc. would be preferable to the town accountant to provide a “paper trail” of the financial exchange. Town Council also clarified that the deposit would be paid out by the building administrator who pays bills on behalf of the ZBA by requesting checks to be cut by the town treasury via invoice.
After the confusion for the process of getting the peer review started by Driscoll was resolved, and a detailed explanation of the forthcoming peer review interactions between both parties was given to the ZBA by Cusson, a motion was made for the intended presentation by McKenzie to take place on Wednesday, Aug. 27 at 6:30 p.m. Once the engineer’s peer reviews are completed, both Driscoll and the McKenzie engineer will prepare responses to one another via the peer review document to work out details and discrepancies on the Ricketts Pond project.
The second order of business for the hearing related to the traffic study. Immediate concerns were brought forth by Cusson about the cost of the traffic study review. The ZBA peer review engineer, Driscoll, did not have a traffic engineer on staff so the outside services of an engineer specializing in traffic studies would be needed for this project. Cusson said that their hired traffic engineer, Jeffrey Dirk of Vanasse & Associates, Inc., for the Ricketts Pond project was asked to provide a detailed overview of what the traffic study would entail. Cusson claims their response was submitted to Driscoll on June 10. Cusson also explained that the response as to the scope of the traffic study was lengthy and detailed beyond what it would normally would be.
Cusson then went on to explain that Dirk’s quoted fee was $12,000. Cusson remarked that this quote was a bit higher than normal but within an acceptable range. The discrepancy then came to light that when the ZBA sought a quote for a peer review of the traffic study via Bowman Consulting Group Ltd. Their quote was much higher, at $21,000. Cusson wanted to know why it would cost twice as much for the review of the report as it would to prepare the actual report. Cusson also remarked that he had provided a list of other firms to get quotes from that were likely more reasonable. Kowalski assured Cusson that he had contacted all of the resources provided and that the ZBA was not going to simply go with the cheapest option to accommodate SLT Construction and that Bowman was a very reputable and large company.
Cusson interrupted and said that they would not pay $21,000 for a review of a report that should cost a fraction of that quote and Opachinski interjected that the cost of the review should be a fraction of what he is paying Dirk to do the actual groundwork and study. Kowalski pointed out that the price SLT Construction chooses to pay their traffic engineer is irrelevant to the ZBA. Cusson heatedly responded that it is not irrelevant and that the cost incurred in hiring Bowman was unjustified and unfair. Cusson then asked that the board consider the proposal to seek quotes from other companies instead of accepting the Bowman offer.
Kowalski responded that he had already contacted all the suggested companies and some were completely irrelevant to the project and not options to consider. The only other company that had provided a quote and was a reputable company relative to the traffic study review needed was from Howard Stein Hudson in Boston. Cusson pointed out that he was familiar with this company as he and his clients had hired them before and their high standing reputation was confirmed all around by both parties. The proposal via Stein Hudson was $8,000.00 -a much lower quote than that from Bowman while providing similar services and depth of review. Stiles agreed that this proposal was likely to be more acceptable to SLT and also could move things along quicker than extending the debate on costs of services, but Kowalski interjected with a proposed motion to hire Bowman on the spot for the review of the traffic study.
Stiles asked for the proposals to be shown on screen so all in the room could see them and expressed that he was not insensitive to the concerns of the applicant in terms of the cost of the Bowman review. Kowalski expressed concern that perhaps the proposal from Stein Hudson was lower because they were familiar with SLT and giving them an undisclosed discount, but Cusson pointed out that this was untrue and that in his thirty years of experience with developments they usually only pay between $4,000 – 6,000 for a peer review of a traffic study -a far cry from $21,000.
Stiles agreed that the Stein Hudson proposal seemed adequate in detail and content in comparison to the services Bowman offered and suggested it would be the more prudent approach to go with the Stein Hudson proposal for review of SLT’s traffic study. Wanting to move on from the lengthy debate Kowalski withdrew his motion to hire Bowman and made a new motion to hire Stein Hudson for the traffic study peer review. The motion was passed unanimously.
Lastly, a moment was opened at the end of the hearing for anyone to voice additional concerns and the floor was taken by Eric Donovan of 66 Winnetuxet in Plympton. He expressed concern that the hearings were taking place in the summer when most town constituents were unavailable and on vacation. Donovan stated that his cousin lives almost directly across from the proposed Ricketts Pond development and he, along with many other local residents are very concerned about the legitimate impact this development proposes in terms of population and tax increase. Donovan pointed out that the hearings would be better attended by locals if they were held in the fall once the vacation months are over. Stiles responded that they are guided by the legal response deadline of six months from the time the applicant filed their application for development. Stiles also pointed out that the hearings are being broadcast via the town website on the Area 58 channel and available at all times to the public. Donovan then addressed Opachinski and asked, “How many units do you really want?” He then explained that he is from Boston and is familiar with developments being proposed at a certain number of units but in reality, the developer intends to build many more than is disclosed in their initial proposal. The ZBA assured Donovan that they will get to the bottom of that in time. Jafferian assured Donovan that the public would have a chance to come forward and voice concerns as the hearings progressed as well. Donovan responded that he moved to Plympton because it was a “sleepy little town” and this development would change that. Following Donovan’s remarks the hearing was adjourned until the next meeting in late August.
If you would like to become involved in the proceedings for a project that will have a significant impact on Plympton’s environment -including several wetland areas, population, and taxes, please visit the town website under Town Resources: Ricketts Pond Estate Proposed 40B for the publicly available documents and either attend the next hearing on Aug. 27 at 6:30 p.m. at the Town House, 5 Palmer Rd., or watch the hearing live or afterward on the Area 58 Channel -linked on the town website and found under the search: Zoning Board. As a small town, residents should be involved and voice their opinions to preserve the things they love about their little but unique town in an age where it seems every spot of empty land is developed.