Neighbors press drainage, lighting and traffic concerns as Planning Board advances Yetin Road contractor‑unit project to a second public hearing

The Plymouth Planning Board accepted as complete a site plan application for a two‑building contractor storage development on Yetin Road and opened a public hearing that drew several neighbors voicing concerns.

Bedford Design’s George Chadwick and owner Mark Murphy described the project as two contractor/storage buildings totaling about 38,400 square feet, served by municipal sewer and a proposed new well, with a DOT curb‑cut to be amended for the use. Chadwick provided traffic estimates: “the project generates 189 vehicle[s] per day with an AM peak hour trip generation of 64 and a PM peak hour generation of 74,” and said stormwater would be collected, treated and discharged to two basins (a bioretention basin and a gravel wetland) that the consultant projects will reduce runoff for 2‑, 10‑, 25‑ and 50‑year storms.

Neighbors at the public hearing urged the board to scrutinize on‑site drainage and off‑site impacts. Jack Nelson, a property owner downhill of the site, said surface water ponds on his land in heavy rains and asked how the project would affect that flow. Another resident, Ursula Asin Huber, asked about seasonal weight restrictions on Yetin Road and sight‑line safety at a tight curve near a park. Local homeowners directly across the road (Joe and Britney Corrant) said they worry that the project driveway will direct intensive vehicle and headlight traffic past their house and asked whether hours of operation, lighting timing and screening could be required.

Applicant responses emphasized design measures to limit off‑site impacts: Chadwick said the proposed stormwater basins and maintenance plan will reduce the parcel's runoff up to a 50‑year storm, and Mark Murphy said the buildings are targeted to contractor tenants (plumbing, HVAC, flooring) rather than heavy trucking or manufacturing. The applicant agreed to provide building elevations, photos of comparable facilities, a clearer phasing plan that shows what will be built in phase one, and details on dumpster/mail handling. Board members discussed third‑party engineering review of drainage as a normal step.

After public comment, the board voted to continue the public hearing and the application to the Planning Board’s March 19 meeting to allow the applicant to provide requested elevations, phased‑build plans, sign details and any requested waivers.