The Plymouth Zoning Board of Appeals convened a special hearing to review the controversial Ocean View North and Sandry Drive 40B developments, which propose 163 units of affordable housing across two sites. Special counsel Carolyn Murray opened the session by clarifying the board's unique authority under Chapter 40B, explaining that it is about looking at what are your local bylaws and local requirements and determining if the need for housing outweighs local safety concerns. Representing the applicant, Stephanie Kefir noted that we feel that some good progress has been made following peer review, while Essa Petri offered an apology to the community, stating, apologies again for that previous meeting, the misunderstanding as far as the attendance.

The applicant's technical team presented data suggesting the projects would have a minimal impact on the neighborhood. Traffic engineer Robert Misho argued that the additional delays that this project, this combination of units, would bring here is dimminimous, despite counts being adjusted for tourism. Civil engineer Peter Ellison detailed the site layouts, noting that each of these parking spaces is 9 feet wide and 18 feet in depth within the garages, though surface spots were widened to 10 feet. Board members remained unconvinced by the data. David Peck challenged the site layout, asserting, I am not convinced that building two needs to be accessed off of Prince, while Michael Leary questioned the lack of pedestrian infrastructure, asking, has there been any consideration to doing anything with the sidewalks on hedge on Sandry? Tom Wallace voiced strong skepticism regarding the applicant’s reliance on national statistics, telling the engineers, I understand clearly that you're using national statistics... I'm uncomfortable with your data. As the discussion turned toward the board’s limited power to deny 40B projects, Ed Conroy sought clarity from counsel, noting, I want everyone to know the expectations of what we face regarding potential state overrides. When asked if they had further questions for the engineers, Peter Conner replied, All set, and Kevin O'Reilly added, I’m good.

The public comment period featured a unified front of opposition from town officials and residents. Select Board member Kevin Kanty slammed the traffic comparison to suburban Brainree, stating, I think using that as a comp is disingenuous to say the least. Fellow Select Board member Debbie Aquinto echoed this disdain, saying, I don't see any asset or any benefit to the town based on this project. Local resident Robert Zuperoli cautioned that while this may be allowed by the law, it is not something that will benefit the community. Motion Made by Ed Conroy to give Mr. Zuperoli an additional two minutes. Motion Passed 5-0. The data collection methods were specifically targeted by Carol Janowski, who observed, I did notice, and I'm going to call it a flawed study, is that it did not include the hours of 9 to 10 and 3 to 4 when school traffic peaks. Ed Dpiro added that the traffic on Court Street is horrendous in the summertime, and Dileia Burns summarized the room's sentiment by telling the developers, we don't want you here. We don't want your project here.

Neighborhood safety was a recurring theme as Julie Waroff asked, why are we making it more dangerous for them to walk to school? while resident George complained about the current state of Hedge Road, saying, to say you wouldn't put sidewalks there, that's just not understanding the area. Professional concerns were raised by Dr. Walter Powell, who noted the type of change proposed here is dramatic, and Karen Edwards, who warned, I am concerned about what we call a heat island. Mike Andrammy questioned the parking ratios, asking, Christ where are all the cars going to go? and Chris Benish asked for clarification on the building types, wondering, why isn't it classified as the low-rise? Visual evidence of congestion was provided by Anne Jones, who noted, we have emergency vehicles traveling up and down our street 24 hours a day, while Trevor Jones shared footage of blocked intersections, noting that during the video, that ambulance right there attempting to come up the street blocked behind the fire truck. Further concerns were voiced by Lisa Fosdic, who noted the project will also affect the traffic cumulatively with Cordage Park, and Kathleen Martell, who asked about parking logistics, wondering, are those assigned to one unit or are people going to get blocked in?

The hearing concluded with final pleas for safety and environmental protection. Samantha Tracy warned that the study doesn't account for what's going to happen when buses start to go down this street, while Beth Greg cautioned the board, I don't want that falling off of the schedule for the future regarding stormwater reviews. Dennis Fre predicted that it’s going to be a bottleneck right there, and David Rochic pointed out the absurdity of the long-term forecast, noting the study claims that in seven years the outlook is the same whether or not the 163 units are going to be built. Chair Michael Main closed by demanding better accessibility standards, stating, wheelchairs are hard to get maneuver in and out even in a 10-ft parking place. Motion Made by Ed Conroy to continue cases 4183 and 4184 to December 1st at 6 pm. Motion Passed 5-0. The meeting was adjourned at [TIME].