The Plymouth Zoning Board of Appeals signaled a firm boundary against shifting development costs to residents this week, flatly denying a developer’s request to waive infrastructure fees for a major North Plymouth housing project. During a marathon session on March 16, the board concluded public testimony for the PY Homes proposal, which seeks to bring 163 units to the Ocean View North and Sandry Drive sites under the state’s Chapter 40B law.

The meeting opened with a stern warning regarding decorum from Chair Michael Main, who addressed an incident from a previous session where a member of the public entered the television control room to complain about audio quality. Main clarified that the building’s acoustics, not the technical staff, were at fault. Somebody apparently gave the person working in there a real hard time and that just can't happen, Main said, insisting that all future grievances be directed to the board itself.

Tensions remained high as the board presented a 60-day extension request on behalf of neighbors who wanted to wait for further EPA environmental findings. Mark Mastriani, representing PY Homes of New England, declined the delay. To answer your question, Mr. Chairman, we are not considering a 60-day extension, Mastriani stated. Chair Main used the moment to explain the difficult legal position the town faces under 40B, which allows developers to bypass many local bylaws if a town hasn't met state affordable housing thresholds. You got to understand we're up against a stacked deck, Main told the crowded room. The town of Plymouth is already behind the eightball because our local laws, most of them don't pertain. It's state law and the state has the upper hand.

The financial impact on the town's infrastructure became a primary flashpoint when the board reviewed waiver requests for the Sandry Drive portion of the project. The applicant sought to waive the $10-per-gallon sewer connection fee for the 25% of units designated as affordable. Member Michael Leary questioned the justification for the request, asking, On the 25% affordables, you request in a waiver that they don't have to pay the sewage connection fee. Where does that come from? Member Ed Conroy was more direct, criticizing the lack of updated wastewater flow data. I'm not in favor of waving anything, Conroy said. No revised or explicit project water demand numbers are found in that March 2026 memo. It's an incomplete submission.

Chair Main echoed this sentiment, emphasizing that the developer’s profit should not come at a cost to the general public. I don't want to wave a penny, Main said. I don't feel that the town has the right to charge taxpayers money to let you make a profit. I'm not going to vote to wave that.

Environmental safety dominated the technical discussion, particularly regarding the site’s proximity to the former Canon’s Engineering Corporation Superfund site. Attorney Stephanie Kiefer, representing the developer, argued that the Superfund site was delisted decades ago and that recent five-year reviews show it remains protective of human health. Addressing the discovery of arsenic at the Sandry Drive site, Kiefer noted that 85 tons of impacted soil had already been removed under state supervision. This is a relatively minor release and it's being addressed, Kiefer said. It's a matter of state law and it's being complied with.

However, residents remained unconvinced. Ann Jones, a local resident, argued that the health of North Plymouth should not be traded for a small increase in the town's affordable housing stock. Plymouth does not need to compromise public health and safety for such a small gain in affordable housing, Jones said, reading a letter from State Senator Fernandez that urged a project halt for further assessment. Another resident, Katie Cook, asked the board to deny the permit because the environmental record remains incomplete until MassDEP issues a final determination later this year. Traffic concerns also surfaced, with engineer Ken Cra criticizing the applicant’s studies for using outdated manuals and regulated speed limits rather than actual driving speeds in the neighborhood.

Board members also dug into site design specifics. Member Peter Conner raised concerns about the use of nine-foot-wide tandem parking spaces, noting that there's a potential for parking spillover if residents find the interior spaces too difficult to navigate. Member David Peck agreed, noting, I feel that nine foot is inside, especially being tandem, is a liability. When discussing the Ocean View North buildings, Peter Ellison, an engineer for the applicant, explained why the project required waivers to use coated corrugated metal pipes for drainage instead of plastic, citing the 96-inch depth of the system. You get a significant increase in the volume the system can hold because it's deeper, Ellison explained.

The board successfully negotiated a condition that 10% of the affordable units be offered with a preference for veterans in the first lottery, a suggestion made by Member Leary that the applicant accepted. Despite this small win, the history of the project remains strained; a previous "friendly 40B" agreement that would have seen the developer replace 1,200 feet of aging asbestos cement water pipe on Prince Street was withdrawn by the applicant after the town failed to approve a local initiative agreement.

Before closing the hearing, Mastriani attempted to de-escalate concerns about the scale of construction, claiming that the estimated 28,000 cubic yards of earth removal cited by residents was inaccurate. He stated that the project is a cut and fill design, with only about 5,000 cubic yards actually leaving the site. Motion Made by D. Peck to close public comment. Motion Passed (5-0). Motion Made by D. Peck to close the public hearing for both cases. Motion Passed (5-0).

The board will now enter the deliberation phase, where they must issue a decision within 40 days. Motion Made by D. Peck to continue the cases to April 6, 2026, at 6:00 p.m. for deliberations. Motion Passed (5-0). Chair Main warned that the board must carefully weigh every point against state law to avoid a "constructive approval," where the project would be approved as-is if the board fails to act in time. The next phase of this is we go into deliberations, Main said. We will talk point by point everything that we've heard with the law right in front of us. It's the law that we're fighting. We're not fighting neighbors.