The Plympton Zoning Board held another public hearing on June 25 for the proposed Ricketts Pond Estates 60-unit, 40B development via the applicant, Peter Opachinski of SLT Construction. Board Member Ethan Stiles opened the hearing with fellow board members David Alberti, Lukasz Kowalski, and Suzanne Jafferian in attendance as well as Town Council, Carolyn Murray. The hearing was to meticulously review and refine the 34pp. Comprehensive Permit Decision for Ricketts Pond Estates, LLC as well as go over a list of proposed waivers for a comprehensive permit to continue with the development of the Ricketts Pond Estates and estate site.
Stiles began the hearing by making sure it was understood that this was now a closed-to-the-public hearing and that the only people with the ability to comment were his fellow board members or, if a comment was needed to be made by the audience or applicants, it had to be done by the leave of the chair.
The board began with the procedural review of the draft to confirm the accuracy of the factual background, procedural history, and submittals, ensuring all necessary documentation was accounted for as of the latest updated version sent to everyone that morning. There has been suggested changes made and highlighted in red for review by the board.
The document was considered accurately updated and maintained throughout the application process and reviewed on a large screen for everyone to view. Section 4 was noted by the board as the section that includes concerns of the communities of Plympton and Carver regarding the project. This section noted and documented their unified opposition to the project proceeding for various reasons including the disregard for honored bylaws that keep the town from being damaged and overdeveloped, the combined traffic for such a large subdivision amidst an industrial park and a freeway, the destruction of rare pine barren ecosystem, insufficient emergency access, close proximity between private septic systems and wells which could lead to nitrogen loading, difficulty enforcing the maintenance and nitrogen removal from the site, last minute configuration changes to the construction plans less than one month from the closing of the hearing, and potential contamination of the natural aquifer that the town relies upon due to alleged unpermitted earth removal activities from the site, compliance with the Massachusetts Environmental Policy Act, reduction of previously designated open space, excess dust continuing to negatively affect the nearby residents from earth removal as well as the noise of the construction, and the existence of a Massachusetts Department of Transportation stormwater basin partially located on the property without evidence of an easement ostensibly designed to collect runoff from Route 44.
The board also stated that the result upon the conclusion of the public hearings would be the decision of the board to either grant or deny the Comprehensive Permit to the Applicant for the Project to be constructed according to the Approved Plans approved by the board, the waivers granted and further conditions impose by the board.
Following the procedural review, the board worked through various conditions of approval, including construction site management, earth disturbance activity rules, and the role of the Homeowners Association (HOA). The board clarified that if there was need for a modification, there was due process on how to proceed.
Murray stated, “There is a process under the regulations for modification, so the applicant would have to notify you if they need a new waiver of sorts. The board would first have to determine if you feel that this is what the regulations would call a substantial versus an insubstantial modification. If you felt it was insubstantial you could just approve it at a regular public meeting -no need for a hearing. If you feel that it’s a substantial change, you have to advertise a public hearing, notify abutters, and then, in the context of the hearing, you would vote whether or not you want to approve or disapprove that modification.”
JDE Civil, Inc. then asked that a change be made in the document concerning earth removal, one of the projects biggest controversies, to say, “Prior to the start of any earth disturbance activities” instead of “Prior to the issuance of any building permit” in regards to construction level plans being reviewed by the building inspector or the boards’ peer review engineer.
There was also a review and refined understanding of the differentiation between a homeowners association (HOA) and individual condominium associations (COA). The subdivision is set up so that each lot is its own COA. The HOA is the overreaching organization encompassing everything else. There were detailed regulations set forth concerning the HOA being responsible for things such as stormwater management, septic tank maintenance, drainage systems, gas, and other particulars, that the town should not be expected to be responsible for.
Significant time was dedicated to discussing fire protection requirements, such as cistern capacities and sprinkler systems for specific lots, stormwater management, and maintaining septic systems. Clarification was made about how to manage nitrogen levels using innovative, alternative septic technologies to try to offset the issue of unusually close proximity of private septic systems and wells. It was suggested that inspections of the septic systems be randomized but “quarterly” to ensure they are in compliance with safety codes and if not, they are repaired by the “deemed responsible” party and if not, the town would be allowed to set in and take necessary measures to ensure proper function -including fines.
Murray reiterated that each septic system was to have its own Title V issued by the Board of Health -meaning the Zoning Board was not the sole party to enforce the conditions in the contract. “The board of health also has some teeth in this in terms of being able to enforce the septic permit,” Murray explained. There was also discussion over the Plympton Fire Departments’ recommendation that 20ft driveways for emergency access and a 4in standpipe system be installed on lots 9, 10, 11, 12, 17, 18, 19. A change was also made in the document about the Plympton Fire Department requiring two 25,000 -not 30,000 gallon cisterns.
The board systematically reviewed a comprehensive list of requested waivers, including those related to Title V septic regulations, earth removal bylaws, and zoning requirements. The 23pp waiver list noted that many waivers were previously discussed but required a formal vote. The waivers addressed a wide variety of points such as removal permits, parking requirements, and the roles of the designated peer reviewers. Murray remarked, “You have heard Attorney Galvin say that denial of some of these waivers will render the project uneconomic and the public hearing is closed, so we don’t have an opportunity to challenge that in any way. It would be something for the Housing Appeals Committee to decide on appeal.” The applicant added that denial of some waivers would render the project “unconstructable” in addition to being rendered uneconomic.
The board did not reach a final conclusion or vote on the full decision during the meeting. They decided to meet again to clarify outstanding items. The board agreed to reconvene on July 6, 2026, at 4:00 p.m. to finalize the matter, as the project had a “drop dead date” for the vote of July 7, 2026.
Following the Zoning Board hearing on June 25, the Massachusetts Environmental Policy Act (MEPA) Office rejected the applicant, SLT Construction’s request to bypass additional environmental review of the Ricketts Pond development. The EEA has ordered a full Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the sand mining, office park, and proposed 60-unit residential development. SLT Construction must be held accountable for questions about avoiding and mitigating harm to the environment before moving forward with the proposed project. Further requirements of SLT Construction include a draft study for public comment as well as a final study covering groundwater protection (including the region’s sole‑source drinking water aquifer), air quality (dust, diesel emissions), traffic impacts, public health concerns, climate resilience, cumulative effects of years of large‑scale sand mining, environmental justice, and open space preservation.
The decision follows over 1,600 public comments submitted through the MEPA process, along with ongoing and increasing input from Plympton’s Board of Health, Planning Board, and Open Space Committee. The developer will be required to prepare and submit the new draft and final EIRs, with public comment periods and MEPA review before any approvals can be granted. This process will determine whether the project can proceed under MEPA’s environmental safeguards and if the project will be permitted to continue as planned. For more information and all publicly available documents on the Ricketts Pond Estate project, please visit the town website at: www.town.plympton.ma.us