Meeting report · Zoning Board of Appeals
Creating this report cost real money.
Help fund coverage →
Zoning Board of Appeals — March 2, 2026
The meeting featured intense legal arguments, accusations of government unaccountability, and significant pushback from abutters regarding a major commercial development.
Public impact
Issues from this meeting with documented community impact.
01
Proposed Gas Station and Convenience Store (Case 4198)
Significant development in a sensitive aquifer protection zone involving potential traffic and environmental changes. Affected: Downtown residents, abutters, and the local aquifer/environment.
zoning change
Decisions logged
Every recorded vote, with timestamps and dissents.
Approval of Case ZBA 4196 (Briggs Halfway Pond Realty Trust)
Approved with three conditions listed in the planning board's report.
Unanimous
Approval of Ryan and Kate Burke petition (168 Warren Avenue)
Approved with four stated conditions plus an additional condition to file a revised plan with the building inspector regarding septic, foundation elevation, utilities, and drainage.
Unanimous
Approval of Case 4203 (Jessica Carsner)
Approved with standard conditions regarding the cabana setback.
Unanimous
Approval of Robert Anselone (3 Howland Court)
Approved with two conditions from the planning board.
Unanimous
Approval of Case 4197 (David Cutopia)
Approved with five conditions: the four previously stated conditions and one requirement to substantially address the seven comments in the DPW report to the satisfaction of the building inspector.
Unanimous
Continuance of Case 4198 hearing
The hearing for Case 4198 is continued to April 27, 2026, to allow the applicant to refine the site plan regarding circulation, snow storage, and EV charging, and to allow abutters time for review.
Passed
Topics discussed
Click a topic to expand quotes and full context.
▶ 06:57 Case ZBA 4196: Briggs Halfway Pond Realty Trust
Request for a special permit to relocate, alter, and expand a pre-existing non-conforming dwelling at 39 Gallows Pond Road. The petitioner addressed outstanding concerns from the Conservation Commission, Public Health, and Engineering.
Speakers: Unidentified speaker, Liry
▶ 17:40 Case 168 Warren Avenue: Ryan and Kate Burke
Request to demolish an existing structure and construct a new code-compliant single-family dwelling with modest footprint expansions. Board discussed requirements for updated site plans showing septic systems and drainage.
Speakers: Unidentified speaker, Jordan Race, David, Michael, Wallace
▶ 25:03 Case 4203: Jessica Carsner
Request for a special permit for a post facto accessory building (cabana) that violates the required side setback. The applicant noted the structure was installed based on an incorrect assumption regarding property lines.
Speakers: Unidentified speaker, Greg Carsner, David, Michael
▶ 32:00 Case 4184 (misstated as 4201/4164): Robert Anselone
Request to rebuild a larger non-conforming single-family dwelling at 3 Howland Court following fire damage. Discussion centered on fire safety, specifically residential sprinkler systems and non-combustible exterior materials versus historical commission requirements.
Speakers: Unidentified speaker, Chris Anderson, Nickerson, Jason
▶ 1:28:00 Case 4197: David Cutopia
Request for a special permit to add a single-story addition, deck, and bulkhead to an existing dwelling. The board discussed missing technical information in the site plan, including topography, utilities, and drainage.
Speakers: Unidentified speaker, Karly Tobias, Michael, David, Jason
▶ 1:28:02 Case 4198: TL Edwards Incorporation Special Permit
A presentation regarding a proposed gas station and convenience store with a drive-thru at 360 Cherry Street, including site layout, drainage, utilities, and traffic impact assessments.
Speakers: Unidentified speaker, Eric Shoemaker, Daniel Luciva
▶ 2:05:34 Public Comment and Legal Objections to Case 4198
Attorneys representing abutters and concerned citizens raised objections regarding improper public notice, potential environmental risks to the aquifer protection zone, and the need for third-party peer reviews.
Speakers: Valerie Moira, Unidentified speaker
▶ 2:11:00 Board Deliberation on Case 4198 Continuance
The board debated whether to vote on the application or continue the hearing to allow for refinements in site circulation, snow storage planning, and EV charging station considerations.
Speakers: Unidentified speaker
Controversy & dissent
Where the board, the community, or the agenda diverged.
Potentially controversial issues
01
Case 4198: TL Edwards Incorporation (Gas Station/Convenience Store)
The proposal involves a gas station and drive-thru in an aquifer protection zone. Abutters and attorneys raised significant concerns regarding environmental risks, improper public notice, and the need for third-party peer reviews of traffic and stormwater impacts.
Board position: The board signaled caution by opting for a continuance rather than an immediate vote, allowing for further technical refinements.
high concern
02
ZBA Accountability and Density
A resident expressed extreme dissatisfaction, accusing the board of disregarding bylaws, destroying neighborhoods, and increasing downtown density without accountability.
Board position: The board's position was dismissive of the personal nature of the comments, with the Chair limiting the interaction to procedural conduct rather than addressing the legal accusations.
medium concern
Community vs. board tension
Ready to share? AI-written accountability posts about this meeting's controversies.
View posts →
Action items
Who owes what, by when.
Submit a revised site plan to the building inspector including septic, foundation, utilities, and drainage details.
Assigned: Ryan and Kate Burke / Jordan Race
Substantially address the seven DPW comments (topography, water/sewer services, foundation elevation, etc.) to the satisfaction of the building inspector.
Assigned: David Cutopia
Refine site plan to address vehicle circulation/islands, identify snow storage locations, and consider adding EV charging stations.
Assigned: Applicant (TL Edwards Inc.) · Due: 2026-04-27
Present a redesigned traffic flow plan, snow storage solutions, and plans for EV charging stations.
Assigned: Applicant (TL Edwards Inc.) · Due: 2026-04-27
Notable statements
The zoning board... act without accountability... [and] you continue to destroy our neighborhoods and add more density to the downtown area. — Abutter (Unnamed) · Public comment expressing extreme dissatisfaction with previous ZBA decisions and perceived disregard for bylaws. ▶ 1:06:00
Safety supersedes aesthetics as far as I'm concerned. — Board Member (Jason) · Discussing the conflict between Fire Department safety requirements (non-combustible materials) and Historical Commission aesthetic requests. ▶ 1:13:49
This is probably the most loosey goosey case I've ever been on... when I approve a plan, I like it tight. — Ed · Expressing concern over the lack of specificity in the current application conditions. ▶ 1:20:33
The zoning bylaw precludes new fuel tanks of this size within the aquifer protection overlay district... the more restrictive district applies to the entire property. — Valerie Moira · Legal argument suggesting the project may be non-compliant due to its location within a protected zone. ▶ 2:05:34
The owner... will go on record today... to state that there is no other development planned behind this gasoline service station. — Mickey Higgins · Addressing concerns regarding the potential for unanalyzed future traffic from the rest of the 38-acre parcel. ▶ 2:27:00
We could condition your approval that we will have two designated EV future car charging spaces. — Unidentified speaker · Suggesting a way to resolve the EV charging concern through conditional approval rather than a continuance. ▶ 2:35:35
I'm shocked in Plymouth, as technically refined as they are, that we couldn't have a condition that we would have snow removal, snow storage spaces labeled, delegated to the building inspector, to the head of the DPW. — Unidentified speaker · Expressing surprise that technical site issues like snow storage could not be handled via board conditions. ▶ 2:36:25
Member positions
0 issues · 0 explicit · 0 inferred
Positions marked ~ are inferred from context and may not reflect the member's explicitly stated position.
Public comment
What residents said — verbatim, with timestamps.
12
Total speakers
7
Addressed
2
Partial
3
Not addressed
Jordan Race
Addressed
Representing Crafted Design Build, the speaker noted that this is the same plan previously presented informally. They clarified that there are no significant changes to the original approval, including parking and bedroom counts, except for a small expansion.
Key concern
Clarifying that the current proposal is substantially identical to the previously approved version.
Board responseThe board asked questions regarding the site plan, topography, and utility connections, and subsequently approved the modification with conditions.
The board accepted the explanation and approved the case with an additional condition regarding the submission of a revised plan to the building inspector.
Rook
Addressed
Speaking as the President of the Warren Cove Condo Association, the speaker expressed strong endorsement for the renovation project. They noted that the applicants are good neighbors and the project is consistent with the neighborhood.
Key concern
Urging the board to approve the petition for Ryan and Kate Burke.
Board responseThe board acknowledged the comment and proceeded to vote on the motion.
The board listened to the endorsement and moved forward with the approval of the petition.
Greg Carsner
Addressed
The speaker explained that a cabana was installed based on an assumption of setbacks that was later disproven by a survey. They requested a setback waiver, noting the location is ideal for supervising young children and has neighbor support.
Key concern
Requesting a post-facto setback waiver for a cabana post that is closer to the property line than required.
Board responseThe board inquired about neighbor support and Title V documentation, then approved the case with standard conditions.
The board addressed the details of the request and granted the approval.
Unidentified speaker
Addressed
A resident who witnessed the fire that damaged the property expressed sympathy for the homeowner. They stated they have faith in the fire department's recommendations and support the rebuild.
Key concern
Expressing support for the rebuilding efforts following a devastating fire.
Board responseThe board acknowledged the emotional testimony and continued the meeting.
The board heard the testimony as part of the public comment section.
Jason
Partial
The speaker expressed concerns regarding the logistics of the rebuild, specifically regarding material staging and excavation. They requested a plan to ensure that construction activities do not negatively impact adjacent property owners (the Butters).
Key concern
Ensuring construction logistics (stockpiling/excavation) do not impact abutters.
Board responseThe board discussed adding a condition for a pre-construction meeting with the speaker, though they ultimately decided against making it a formal condition.
The board discussed the concern and considered a formal condition, but the motion passed without the specific requirement of a pre-construction meeting with this specific individual.
Unidentified speaker
Not addressed
A resident expressed strong opposition to the board's recent decisions, accusing them of disregarding zoning bylaws and encroaching on property rights. They criticized the board for adding density to the downtown area and acting without accountability.
Key concern
Accusing the ZBA of disregarding bylaws and failing to protect resident property rights.
Board responseThe Chair told the speaker that while they can have an opinion, they cannot insult the board members.
The board did not engage with the substantive legal arguments, only addressing the speaker's personal insults toward the board.
Al Tusnot
Addressed
A long-time neighbor spoke in support of the applicant, noting the quality of the previous renovations done by the owner. They stated the addition is a minor increase and fits well within the neighborhood context.
Key concern
Supporting the approval of the addition for David Kachopa.
Board responseThe board acknowledged the support and proceeded with the discussion.
The board heard the support and proceeded to vote based on the merits of the case.
Unidentified speaker
Addressed
A neighbor expressed support for the project, noting that the owner has done a meticulous job with previous work. They suggested the addition is a minor increase in roof surface and would be well-integrated.
Key concern
Supporting the application and noting the small scale of the expansion.
Board responseThe board heard the comment and proceeded to the next stage of the meeting.
The comment was noted as part of the public support for the case.
David Kachopa
Addressed
The property owner explained that the addition is being requested to provide a first-floor bedroom to accommodate his needs as he ages and prepares for upcoming medical procedures.
Key concern
Explaining the personal necessity for the single-story addition.
Board responseThe board heard the explanation and moved to discussion regarding technical requirements.
The board listened to the applicant's reasoning and used it to guide the discussion on the necessity of the project.
Unidentified speaker
Addressed
An abutter's attorney argued that the project should be continued to allow for a third-party peer review of the stormwater and traffic plans. They also raised concerns about the property's location within an aquifer protection overlay district.
Key concern
Requesting a continuance for peer review and raising concerns about water supply protection.
Board responseThe board discussed the request for a continuance and the need for peer review.
The board ultimately voted to continue the hearing to April 27th to allow for more review and refinement.
Unidentified speaker
Partial
An attorney representing concerned citizens argued that there was no evidence of proper public notice or an affidavit of signage. They also requested a continuance for peer review of groundwater, traffic, and stormwater impacts.
Key concern
Lack of proper public notice/signage and the need for third-party peer review.
Board responseThe board discussed the signage issue and the request for continuance.
The board addressed the signage issue by noting it was in the record/photos, but they granted the continuance requested by the other attorney, which covers the peer review request.
Mickey Higgins
Not addressed
A consultant for the gas station project argued that the application should be acted upon immediately. They stated that the project is already in compliance with the DPW and that any future developments would require new applications.
Key concern
Requesting the board to vote on the current application rather than continuing the hearing.
Board responseThe board discussed the request but ultimately voted to continue the hearing.
The board declined the request to vote immediately and instead voted to continue the hearing to a later date.
Support coverage
Creating this report cost real money.
MeetingWatch attended, transcribed, and analyzed this meeting on its own dime. If this work is valuable to you, chip in to keep covering Plymouth.
Follow Plymouth
One email when a new report is published from the Zoning Board of Appeals — or one weekly digest.
Report composed by
gemma-4-26b, claude-opus-4-7 · analyzed 2026-05-25.