Plymouth zoning board continues Stone Bluff contractor-storage proposal after abutter objections

The Plymouth Zoning Board on Monday continued a public hearing on a special‑exception application from Stone Bluff Properties Holding LLC for a proposed 38,400‑square‑foot contractor‑storage and commercial‑service facility on an 8.8‑acre parcel on Eaton/Yatton Road.

Proponent George Chadwick of Bedford Design told the board the parcel has about 600 feet of frontage, the proposal would create roughly 38 units, and the project has multiple state and federal reviews in town files: an NHDES wetlands permit, an NHDOT curb‑cut permit and Army Corps review. Chadwick said the site would use dark‑sky‑compliant lighting and that ‘‘the parcel is 8.8 acres in size, has 600 feet of frontage on Eaton Road’’ and that the project ‘‘was approvable by the planning board’’ pending this zoning action.

Neighbors and abutters at the hearing raised concerns about traffic volumes, hours and types of tenants, light intrusion and possible declines in property values. Joe Caranta, who lives directly across Yatton Road, said the project would change the character of the agricultural zone and warned that ‘‘I don’t know any, you know, self employed contractor that’s working a 9 to 5 hours’’ — a comment underscoring concerns about early‑morning and late‑evening site activity. Other residents cited potential noise from stored equipment, worry about tractor‑trailer access and the visual impact of a building raised several feet above road grade.

The applicant pointed to a traffic memo submitted to DOT and told the board NHDOT had issued a curb‑cut permit after reviewing turning templates. The proponent cited a trip‑generation estimate of about 377 vehicle trips per day for the full development and described the ‘‘typical vehicle’’ as a box truck rather than a heavy tractor‑trailer; he said the planning board required signage prohibiting overnight tractor‑trailer parking and that most lights would be turned off by 10 p.m., with nine security lights remaining on.

Board members said they lacked objective evidence in the record to accept the applicant’s assertion that surrounding property values would not be affected and asked for an independent study. The chair moved to continue the application so the applicant could submit a licensed real‑estate appraisal assessing likely effects on neighboring property values; that motion was seconded and approved by a recorded vote of 4–1. The board scheduled the matter to be taken up again at its next regular meeting and told both applicant and abutters they may submit appraisal materials before the continued hearing.

The board’s recorded continuation leaves outstanding items for the applicant to document (the requested appraisal and any additional responses to abutter concerns) while the planning board record and DOT/wetlands permits remain noted in town files.