The Plymouth Zoning Board of Appeals opened its December session with a prompt administrative correction for the Conority Group 3 property on Sandwich Street before transitioning into a lengthy and often contentious continuation of the PY Homes 40B development. Chairman Michael Main opened the evening by welcoming the community, noting, there's 24 Plymouths in the United States, but there's only one number one, and we're it. Consulting engineer Hal Chuba explained the first petition, which sought to vacate a previous permit modification to return to an original plan for a convenience store. Chuba noted that leaving the canopy at the present orientation is best for the site due to logistical and traffic constraints. Motion Made by Ed Conroy to vacate case number 4155 without prejudice. Michael Leary provided the second, stating, I'll second that motion. Motion Passed 5-0.

The focus of the evening then shifted to the 163-unit Ocean View North and Sandry Drive project, where traffic engineer Robert Misho defended the use of February traffic counts adjusted upward by 25 percent to simulate peak conditions. Misho argued that the industry standards are very well-formed standards and are highly consistent with reality when compared to other regional developments. Essup Petri of PY Homes emphasized the applicant's long-term coordination with the town, stating, we’ve actually been working with the town of Plymouth on this project for two years. However, board members remained skeptical of the data's relevance to a tourist-heavy town. Kevin O'Reilly countered, I will disagree with the existing traffic counts in so much as I don't believe there's been any study regarding traffic in July and August. Associate member David Peck highlighted the specific impact on local side streets, observing that adding 14 [cars] is a 50% increase in the Prince Street utilization.

The board also questioned Patrick Tierney, the town’s peer reviewer from Apex Companies, who maintained that the applicant’s methodology was sound. Tierney told the board, in terms of industry practice... I wouldn't recommend an independent traffic study despite the board's concerns. This led Tom Wallace to request a deeper look into the legal timing for such a study, asking, would you speak to a second traffic study in your opinion? Ultimately, Peter Conner expressed doubt that a new study would yield different results, saying, I don't think a duplication of effort... I don't see a value in it. During the technical discussion, project engineer Pete Ellison clarified accessibility features, noting, there is a handicap spot included in the garage as well as the four spaces on the exterior.

Public comment was overwhelmingly critical, led by Select Board member Kevin Kanty, who urged the ZBA to stand with us in opposition to this out of town developer because the statistics that they're pointing out do not reflect reality. Resident Ed Dpierro warned that these industry standards say nothing about safety, while Robert Zuperoli argued the comparison sites bear no resemblance to Plymouth whatsoever. Neighbor Mike Angeli asked the board to consider how many residents you expect live there and how many you would expect to work, suggesting higher car ownership than predicted. Lisa Fosdic voiced concerns about cumulative congestion from a new cancer center, asking, what about the other 300 units that haven't been built yet? Environmental attorney Meg Sheen called the location inappropriate and suggested the project could potentially trigger MEPA review based on parking thresholds.

Further testimony from Prince Street residents highlighted neighborhood safety, with Carol Janowski noting that families spill out onto the roadway because the project lacks a designated play area. Alex Cook suggested the town gather our own data just to really do a peer review, while Karen Edwards described existing parking overflows at nearby complexes where every single parking space that High Cliff has was taken. Dennis Farrell warned of environmental hurdles, noting there is a dump behind 16 Prince Street that may impact the site. The hearing was continued to December 15th to address natural resources and civil engineering. Motion Made by Michael Main to continue this hearing until 6:00 December 15th. Motion Passed 5-0. The meeting was adjourned at 8:06 PM.