Every member of Plymouth's Zoning Board of Appeals said, on the record, that they did not want the Pulte Homes condominium project in North Plymouth to happen. Then in April 2026, all five voted to approve it anyway. Board Chairman Michael Main put it plainly at the final hearing, according to Plymouth Independent: "I haven't liked it since the very first day it came forward and I still don't like it." He voted yes.
That gap between what a local board wants and what it can actually stop is the real story here, and it matters to anyone weighing property near Sandri Drive, Prince Street, Court Street, or Cordage Park in North Plymouth. The project sits on land with a documented industrial and environmental history. It moved through Massachusetts' Chapter 40B affordable housing law in a way that reveals exactly how much leverage that law hands developers and how little it leaves towns. And as of the most recent reporting, the whole thing may have quietly died over a missed paperwork deadline rather than any of the arguments that consumed a year of public hearings.
What Sits Under the Sandri Drive Site
The largest of the three proposed buildings, a six-story, 63-unit structure at 24 Sandri Drive, would rise on land immediately next to the Plymouth Harbor/Cannon Engineering Corp Superfund site, where the EPA found lead, fuel oil, and other hazardous substances leaking from aboveground storage tanks back in 1980. The site was removed from the EPA's National Priorities List in 1993, but it remains under ongoing federal five-year review, the most recent completed in 2023 and finding the existing remedy still protective. According to Plymouth Independent, that Superfund parcel itself carries a deed restriction barring any housing or recreational use there, though that restriction applies to the old tank site, not to the lot next door where Pulte wants to build.
The lot Pulte wants to build on has its own separate history. It was formerly a warehouse for L. Knife & Sons, and in the fall of 2025 environmental consultants found arsenic and other chemicals in the soil and water there. According to Plymouth Independent, the state ordered the land's owner, the Sheehan family's Eight Mates LLC, which had agreed to sell the property to Pulte, to remove it. Crews hauled away 7,500 gallons of contaminated water and 200 tons of soil. The arsenic order did not surface in the public hearing record until Plymouth Independent reporting in January 2026 connected it to the Superfund adjacency. One opponent who reviewed the landowner's consultant reports pointed out that arsenic classified as historic does not have to be reported to the state, and Pulte's attorney told the board in March that the land is safe and free of hazardous substances.
None of this means the land is unsafe to build on. Environmental experts quoted in that reporting, including a former head of the EPA's Superfund program, said they'd be comfortable living nearby once a cleanup was verified complete. But it does mean that a property's environmental history along this stretch of North Plymouth's waterfront doesn't always show up until a permitting fight forces it into the public record, which is worth knowing before you assume a quiet lot has a quiet past.
Why 163 New Units Barely Move the Needle
Chapter 40B lets developers bypass most local zoning rules in any town where less than 10 percent of the housing stock is classified as subsidized or income-restricted. Plymouth's affordable housing share was reported at 8.42 percent as of the April 2026 hearing where the board approved Pulte's permit. That's the number that matters, because it's the one that determines whether the town has any real leverage at all.
Of the 163 units Pulte proposed, only 41, or 25 percent, would actually be income-restricted affordable units. And only those 41 count toward the town's 10 percent benchmark. A project that size, built as owner-occupied condominiums, moves Plymouth only a fraction of the way toward regaining local control over projects like this one. Had the same 163 units been built as rental apartments instead of condos, every single one would have counted toward the threshold under state rules. The building type alone changes how much progress a town makes toward the number that lets it say no to the next one.
That's the mechanism worth understanding if you're comparing North Plymouth to other South Shore towns. A community sitting just under 10 percent affordable housing has very little standing to reject a 40B application on land use grounds alone, no matter how large or out of scale the project looks next to a rail line of single-family homes. The board's own lawyer told members as much, warning that a denial would likely be overturned on appeal and that fighting it in court could cost the town six figures with no guarantee of winning.
How the Fight Actually Unfolded
- In late 2024, Pulte and the town discussed a "friendly" 40B arrangement for a smaller proposal, with the developer offering to fund water infrastructure work in exchange for a streamlined process.
- Formal Zoning Board of Appeals hearings on the revised, larger comprehensive permit began in September 2025, covering all three buildings and 163 units.
- In June 2025, the town's Select Board formally asked MassHousing, the state agency that oversees 40B eligibility, to reject the project outright, the first time in 25 years Plymouth had taken that step. MassHousing didn't grant the request.
- Through the fall, residents challenged the developer's traffic study, arguing it was conducted in February, a low-traffic month, and didn't account for summer tourist volume or the two churches near Prince Street.
- On January 12, 2026, Plymouth Independent reported the Sandri Drive building's proximity to the Superfund site and the arsenic finding on the adjacent parcel. Opposition intensified almost immediately.
- On January 27, 2026, 158 residents signed and mailed a formal petition to the state Department of Environmental Protection and the EPA. More than 270 eventually signed related petitions.
- On February 12, 2026, U.S. Rep. William Keating sent a letter to the EPA's regional director urging a reassessment of the site's safety, joining all five Select Board members, both state representatives, and state Sen. Dylan Fernandes in formal opposition.
- On March 17, 2026, the ZBA held a tense final public hearing and delayed its vote after Pulte declined a resident-requested 60-day extension.
- On April 13, 2026, the board approved the comprehensive permit, attaching conditions requiring proof that contamination had been removed before earthwork could begin.
Even with a Congressman, a state senator, two state representatives, and every Select Board member on record against it, the project received ZBA approval.
The Deadline That Might Have Decided It
After the ZBA approval, Pulte still needed sign-off from the town's Conservation Commission, a separate body that reviews wetlands and environmental impact. That permit reportedly did not go Pulte's way, and the developer had until September 15, 2026 to either appeal the denial to the state DEP or file a new application with the Commission. According to Plymouth Independent's reporting on September 17, Pulte had done neither by the deadline, and talk had turned to the land going back on the market.
The report also quoted Carol Jankowski, one of the project's most consistent opponents, saying she was hopeful but cautious and would wait a little longer before she would "dance around the neighborhood, open champagne and throw a party!" It quoted Select Board member Kevin Canty calling a possible withdrawal "a great victory for North Plymouth."
The door isn't fully shut. A DEP spokeswoman noted that an appeal postmarked, but not yet received, by the deadline would still be accepted. So the project's status remains genuinely unresolved as of this writing, and anyone tracking it should expect that to firm up in the coming weeks rather than treat either outcome as settled.
What stands out is how little the yearlong public fight, the petitions, the congressional letter, the scientific testimony, appears to have structurally mattered next to a routine administrative deadline. The loudest opposition didn't stop the project. A missed filing window might.
What This Means If You're Comparing North Plymouth
None of this suggests a broader environmental problem across North Plymouth. It's specific to a cluster of parcels near Cordage Park with a documented industrial past, the kind of legacy that shows up on former mill and warehouse sites along working waterfronts up and down the South Shore. What it does suggest is that a town's affordable housing percentage, not its zoning bylaws or its board's preferences, is often the number that actually governs what can get built on a given parcel. If you're weighing North Plymouth against a neighborhood with a higher existing affordable housing share, that's a meaningful difference in how much say local officials retain over future development near you.
It's also a reminder that a permitting fight, however public, can surface facts about a specific piece of land that never show up in a routine listing. The public record, in this case a town zoning agenda and a string of local news stories, ended up telling residents more about their own neighborhood's history than any marketing document would.
Frequently Asked Questions
Is the Sandri Drive area still contaminated? The EPA's most recent five-year review, completed in 2023, found the original Superfund remedy still protective. The separate arsenic issue found on the adjacent lot in fall 2025 was addressed through a state-ordered removal that fall.
Could Pulte still move forward with the project? As of the most recent reporting, Pulte had not filed an appeal or a new Conservation Commission application by the September 15, 2026 deadline, though a postmarked appeal could still be accepted. The outcome wasn't confirmed at the time of this writing.
Does this affect other properties in North Plymouth? The environmental and permitting history described here is specific to the Sandri Drive, Prince Street, and Court Street parcels tied to this application. It doesn't reflect the neighborhood broadly, but it's a useful example of the kind of history worth asking about on any older industrial-adjacent lot near the waterfront.
If you're looking at a property near Cordage Park or anywhere else in North Plymouth and want a clear-eyed read on its zoning history, permitting status, or environmental record before you make an offer, Selling South of Boston can help you dig into the public record before it becomes a surprise at closing.
This article is general information, not legal, tax or financial advice. Consult a qualified professional about your situation.
