Plymouth Board of Adjustment denies rehearing request for propane-storage proposal

The Plymouth Board of Adjustment voted unanimously on a motion to deny a rehearing request for an application to site propane storage tanks and related operations, the panel said after reviewing the May decision and materials in the board—s record. The board had considered whether to allow new evidence to be entered at a rehearing but concluded the existing record supported its prior findings.

The decision matters because a rehearing would have allowed the applicant to introduce a supplemental packet of materials, including studies and photographs the applicant submitted after the May decision. The board—s discussion centered on whether the original record contained adequate evidence to justify denial and whether the applicant had been deprived of a fair opportunity to rebut evidence at the earlier hearings.

Board members opened by confirming attendance and clarifying that the meeting was a public meeting (not a public hearing) and therefore would be a deliberative discussion among the members. The packet reviewed at tonight—s meeting included the applicant—s motion for a rehearing, the May 5 notice of decision, and minutes from prior hearings; members agreed the May 5 minutes represented the board—s final decision for the application.

Members reviewed the board—s factual findings from earlier meetings, noting that the April meeting had 16 draft findings while the May decision contained 24 findings. The applicant—s request argued the board had relied on evidence not in the record and had not tied specific negative impacts to particular findings. Board members identified several contested findings by number, including concerns about character-of-neighborhood impacts, potential effects on neighboring property values, lighting and safety, and proximity to existing or proposed childcare and school facilities.

The board debated the quality and relevance of photographs that had been submitted (some from other sites) and repeatedly said a site-specific rendering would have helped them visualize the project—s visual impact. "We had no rendering that showed exactly what this property would look like," a member said during the discussion, describing why the lack of site-specific visuals made some findings harder to tie precisely to the record.

On the claim that the applicant had been denied the opportunity to rebut evidence, members referenced the May minutes (the hearing was continued at the applicant—s request from the first meeting to the second) and said the applicant had time between meetings to prepare a rebuttal. The May minutes, the board observed, record that when asked about impacts on neighboring property values, an individual referenced in the May minutes acknowledged no formal analysis had been conducted.

After discussion, a board member moved to propose a rehearing; the motion was discussed and put to a vote and failed (no votes in favor). The board then moved to deny the rehearing and the motion to deny passed unanimously. The board directed staff to notify the applicant using the board—s standard template for a denial. The Chair said the board believed the existing written record provided a sufficient basis for the May decision and that an appeal to superior court remained an option for the applicant.

The meeting briefly moved into a non-public session to consult with town counsel about process and then reconvened to complete the public votes. The board concluded by assigning staff the task of preparing the notification letter and adjourning the meeting.

What—s next: The applicant has 30 days under the applicable rules to decide whether to appeal the board—s decision to superior court. The board will send its formal denial notice to the applicant by mail and follow its established template for that communication.