The Plymouth Zoning Board of Appeals stalled a proposal for a new gas station and convenience store on Cherry Street Monday night, requiring the developer to redesign the site plan to create a wider safety margin from the town’s primary aquifer. The project, proposed by TL Edwards for a five-acre portion of a sand and gravel operation, faced intense scrutiny from environmental advocates and competing business interests regarding the exact boundaries of the Aquifer Protection Overlay District (APOD).

Attorney Bill Sims, representing the applicant, argued that the project has been fully vetted by town departments and would provide a new tax revenue stream. The town currently realizes no personal property taxes from the equipment because it is a manufacturing corporation; a new site in the MC district would not have that exemption, Sims said. Engineer Eric Shoemaker explained that the project team reduced the convenience store to 4,999 square feet and added electric vehicle charging stations to meet previous board requests. Despite these concessions, the board remained focused on the proximity of fueling infrastructure to the protective zone. Associate Member David Peck questioned the tight engineering, asking, Given where the APOD is, why didn't you consider moving the five acres further to the left so you don't need to squeeze your engineering into such a tight space?

The opposition, led by Attorney Harley Racer representing Energy North and Attorney Meg Sheehan representing the Jones River Watershed Association, presented modeling suggesting the current APOD lines are outdated. Racer argued that under the bylaw, the board cannot authorize fuel storage exceeding 500 gallons within the district, stating, The applicant is being cute by placing tanks mere feet on the other side of the line. Hydrogeologist John Castrinos warned that modern modeling shows the line shifts during droughts, meaning fueling infrastructure would fall within the district if delineated today. Concerns regarding stormwater were echoed by Engineer Renee Bordeaux, who noted that hydrodynamic separators do not remove dissolved contaminants like benzene or toluene.

Board members expressed a desire for a compromise that would ensure water safety while respecting current bylaws. We have engineers with different ideas creating uncertainty, noted Member Ed Conroy. If there wasn't an environmental issue, I'd be in favor. Building Commissioner Jason Sylvia reminded the board that the town typically accepts stamped plans from engineers and that there is clear precedent on projects like Amazon and the mall that bifurcate the protection zone. However, Member Michael Leary suggested a tactical shift to resolve the stalemate. I suggest we continue to have them show us the site moved 10 or 15 feet to satisfy the concerns, Leary said. Motion Made by E. Conroy to continue Case 4198 to June 15, 2026, specifically to address the aquifer protection line and potential site redesign. Motion Passed (5-0-0).

In a separate matter, the board denied a request from William Smith for a special permit to keep a 30-by-30-foot metal Quonset hut already under construction at 359 Luns Way. Smith admitted he had already poured the concrete foundation, explaining, The purpose is to clean up the yard and store items like antique cars and pellets. Neighbors and board members characterized the industrial-style building as a poor fit for the residential area. Abutter Douglas Wood claimed the structure was a gross violation of the 40-foot rear setback and alleged that Smith had cleared trees on his property without permission. Member Kevin O'Reilly expressed frustration with the lack of detail in the submission, noting, I drove by. I couldn't figure out how you get access to the back. The site plan is lacking.

Building Commissioner Sylvia described the Quonset hut as a substantial building that was brought to his attention through enforcement actions. While Chair Michael Main initially defended property rights, stating a person is the king of their castle, he ultimately agreed the structure went too far. Motion Made by M. Leary to deny the petition without prejudice. Motion Passed (4-1-0) with M. Main voting No. The denial without prejudice allows the applicant to return with more comprehensive plans in the future, though board members signaled that approval remains unlikely without significant changes.