Plymouth planning board continues hearing on contractor-storage site plan after neighbors raise drainage and traffic concerns

The Plymouth Planning Board continued a public hearing on a site plan for tax map 213, lot 23-2, after members and neighbors pressed the applicant for more technical detail and commitments on stormwater, phasing and traffic impacts.

George Chadwick, representing Stone Bluff Properties, told the board that the project would use an amended DOT curbcut, propose a well and connect to municipal sewer and that the submitted materials include stormwater calculations and a stormwater maintenance plan. "Tonight we're here to discuss a site plan for tax map 213, lot 23-2," Chadwick said during his presentation.

Why it matters: The proposal would place light-industrial, contractor-oriented units near existing residences on Yetin Road. Neighbors said they worry about vehicle sizes, seasonal weight limits on the road, and potential contamination from chemicals or pesticides that could affect private wells and a nearby brook. The board said those concerns — and specific plan details the applicant has not yet provided — merit a continuation so staff and peer reviewers can vet the technical work.

What the board asked for: Members requested clearer elevations and a phase-one plan showing what would be built first and what would be held for later phases; details about site lighting and a timing plan for lights; confirmation of dumpster and trash-handling arrangements; and either a third-party drainage review paid via escrow or sufficient documentation to satisfy the town's reviewers. Board members also discussed whether the board should define what constitutes "active and substantial development" to protect vesting for phased projects.

Neighbors pressed the applicant on road impacts. "The road has some restrictions at certain seasons for weight for certain kinds of trucks," Ursula Asin Huber, a nearby resident, told the board, asking whether heavier trucks would use the site. Applicant representatives said they anticipate contractor vans and small box trucks rather than tractor-trailers and that the DOT curbcut amendment will evaluate trip generation for the specific use.

Technical points presented by the applicant included a stated wetland permit and an estimated 3,462 square feet of wetland impact; applicant representatives said runoff from the paved areas would be routed to catch basins, treated in a gravel wetland and a bioretention basin, and then discharged consistent with the submitted drainage plan.

Applicant response and conditions: Project representatives said units are designed for local contractors, would be insulated and likely served by heat-pump mini-splits, and that tenants would not store oils or hazardous chemicals in quantities expected to threaten sewer connections or wells. The board signaled it may require conditions or easements that address off-site mitigation (for example, plantings to screen headlights), financial assurance for site stabilization or restoration, and clearer phasing/timing language to avoid long-term uncertainty if later phases are delayed.

Outcome and next steps: The board voted to continue the public hearing to March 19 to allow the applicant time to supply elevations, a phase-one plan, lighting and timing details, and responses to neighbor concerns. No final approvals were granted at the meeting; the board asked staff to circulate a checklist of the requested materials ahead of the next hearing.

Speakers quoted or referenced in this article are members of the Planning Board and the applicant team. The hearing record shows the applicant provided preliminary stormwater information and that several technical details remain outstanding.