A marathon session of the Plymouth Zoning Board of Appeals revealed deep fractures between developers and North Plymouth residents over a proposed 163-unit affordable housing project. The dual-site development, known as Ocean View North and Sandry Drive, faced intense scrutiny Monday night as neighbors and officials characterized the applicant’s traffic data as unrealistic and detached from the reality of Plymouth’s summer tourism season.

The project, brought forward under the state’s Chapter 40B statute, would consist of 100 units at Ocean View North and 63 units at Sandry Drive. Special Counsel Carolyn Murray opened the session by reminding the board of its unique mandate under the law, noting that local rules can be overridden unless they represent a significant concern for public health and safety. This is not about proving hardship; it’s about looking at local requirements and determining if they create a matter of local concern rooted in public health and safety that outweighs the need for affordable housing, Murray said, adding that the board holds the authority usually split between the Conservation Commission, DPW, and Health departments.

Robert Micho, a traffic engineer representing PY Homes, presented data suggesting that the combined 163 units would only generate about 63 total vehicle trips during peak commuter hours. Using a seven-year horizon analysis, Micho argued there would be literally no difference in traffic delays with or without the project. He noted that the town is already planning a southbound left-turn lane at the Court/Cherry/Prince intersection, funded by the CVS development. However, Associate Member Tom Wallace was quick to question the reliability of the figures. Where does your data analytics come from? I'm uncomfortable with your data, Wallace asked, pointedly inquiring, Are you ever wrong?

Micho defended his 37 years of experience and the use of the Institute of Transportation Engineers manual, asserting that he increased ground counts by 25% to account for summer tourism. Chair Michael Main remained skeptical of the impact on the local infrastructure. Did you consider this is a tourist town? It’s inundated with tourism, Main noted during the engineer's presentation.

Site logistics also drew fire from the board. Civil Engineer Peter Ellison detailed a parking plan where spaces inside the garages would be only 9 feet wide because structural columns prevent the standard 10-foot width. Chair Main was blunt in his assessment of the narrow stalls: 9-foot parking places are not going to make it by me. I don't care where they are located. You may have to reduce density to get the parking.

Member Kevin O'Reilly pushed for better pedestrian infrastructure, asking, Are you planning sidewalks on Hedge Road? Ellison confirmed that no sidewalks were planned for that stretch. Associate Member David Peck raised concerns about the building's placement and the high water table, which boring reports show as high as 2.5 feet. Our bylaws require 10 feet of clearance, Peck said, further questioning why one building was placed on Prince Street rather than in an industrial area. Half the concerns are about Prince Street access. I'm not convinced Building 2 needs to be there.

The public comment period saw a steady stream of residents voicing opposition. Robert Zuperoli, a Town Meeting Member, urged the board to deny the permits unless the developer returns to original community mitigation agreements. Resident Carol Janowski labeled the traffic study flawed because it was conducted in February and missed peak school hours. We don't want you here. We don't want your project here. Everyone in this room is not for it, resident Dileia Burns added.

Safety was a recurring theme. Trevor Jones presented visual evidence of emergency vehicles struggling to navigate Prince Street on Sundays due to church parking. Anne Jones voiced fears that the added density would overwhelm the local hospital and delay emergency responders. Kevin Kanty of the Plymouth Select Board formally requested a denial, arguing that the developer walked away from mitigation talks and that the parking ratios were inadequate for a town without robust transit. Select Board member Debbie Aquinto echoed the sentiment, calling for an independent traffic study rather than a desk review of the applicant’s data.

Other residents highlighted specific neighborhood hazards. George of Mustard Field described Hedge Road as an ice rink in winter, while Karen Edwards raised concerns about the heat island effect and sandy soil stability. Julie Waroff noted the presence of two nearby funeral homes that she felt were ignored in the traffic counts, and Samantha Tracy argued the study was self-serving and ignored the senior citizen community that exits onto Prince Street.

Recognizing the legal weight of the 40B statute, Member Ed Conroy warned the crowd that denying the project could lead to a difficult appeal at the state level. Attorney Murray, in your experience, if we deny this based on inadequate traffic studies... what are the odds at the Housing Appeals Committee? Conroy asked. Murray responded that towns rarely win such appeals. I want everyone to know we have an extremely uphill battle and it will be expensive, Conroy told the residents. I think we should do the battle, but people should know expectations.

The board, including members Michael Leary and Peter Conner who participated in the deliberations, reached a consensus to continue the hearing to allow for further review of drainage and civil engineering. Motion Made by E. Conroy to continue Cases 4183 and 4184 to December 1st at 6:00 PM. Motion Passed (5-0).