PulteGroup presented an expanded traffic analysis and mitigation plan for its continued 40B applications (cases 4183 and 4184) before the Zoning Board of Appeals in Plymouth, drawing technical questions from board members, confirmation from the town’s peer reviewer and sustained public opposition that called for fresh traffic counts.

Essek Petri of Pulte Homes of New England introduced the team and summarized the project footprint: a 163‑unit homeownership development consisting of two Ocean View North buildings (50 units each) and a 63‑unit Sandry Drive building across roughly nine acres. Robert (Bob) Michaud, managing principal of MDM Transportation, presented the traffic impact and access studies, describing methodology that followed MassDOT guidance and ITE trip‑generation practice, a 7‑year planning horizon, separate studies for Sandry Drive and Ocean View North, and a peer‑review process by the town’s consultant.

Michaud said February traffic counts were adjusted to annual average conditions and that his team applied a 20–25% seasonal correction to reflect local tourist influence—well above the common 2–5% correction range the MassDOT guidance notes. He defended the larger adjustment by citing MassDOT permanent count stations in the area and five Massachusetts projects (Jonathan’s Landing, Ridge at Blue Hills, Avalon at Bedford Center, North Billerica project and a Wrentham project) used to compare observed trip rates against ITE estimates; he said observed peak‑hour trip generation for comparable projects aligned closely with ITE and with the applicant’s projected 163‑unit totals.

The study concluded that, with planned infrastructure improvements (including an exclusive left‑turn lane at Cherry/Prince Street and a preempted signal at Court Street and Hedge Road to aid the fire station), intersections would operate at acceptable levels of service (C or D) seven years out even with the project. Michaud estimated outbound left‑turn delays from the proposed Court Street driveway would average 22–28 seconds—within level‑of‑service D thresholds—and that cumulative traffic additions would represent modest increases (for example, roughly one additional vehicle every 3–4 minutes on Court Street during peak hours).

Patrick Tierney of Apex Companies, the town’s peer reviewer, told the board he reviewed counts, seasonal adjustments and distribution models and did not recommend revising the applicant’s analysis. He said an independent study could add data but was not likely to produce materially different conclusions given the peer review.

Board members pressed the applicant on several technical points: availability of revised electronic plans showing 10‑foot exterior stalls and garage layouts, identification of ADA spaces within garages, truck‑turn diagrams and the practical effects on Prince Street where residents fear increased use. The applicant acknowledged some slides were omitted from the night’s deck and committed to provide the updated plans, ADA/garage details and a civil/site presentation at the next session.

During public comment, town officials and dozens of residents urged the board to require an independent traffic study with new counts taken in summer months. Kevin Canty (member of the Plymouth Select Board) and multiple Prince Street residents said the February counts and desk adjustments do not reflect the seasonal tourist patterns, weekend and school‑release peaks, existing on‑street parking, emergency access constraints, or nearby planned projects (including an incoming cancer center and other commercial developments) that they argued should be incorporated in cumulative forecasts. Speakers also raised concerns about tandem and assigned garage parking, visitor parking, pedestrian safety on Hedge Road and Prince Street, wetlands and potential MEPA triggers related to parking and curb‑cut thresholds.

The board debated whether to commission an independent study. Several members and staff said they were not persuaded the town should pay for a separate count given the peer review and the public hearing timing; others favored additional data. Under the regulations governing public hearings, attendees and counsel noted deadlines (180 days to close the public hearing after opening) and that an independent study performed by the town would require town funding rather than being charged as an applicant study fee.

To allow time for the applicant to supply requested plan materials and for further public comment, the board voted unanimously to continue the public hearing to 6:00 p.m. on December 15. The applicant also offered to present civil/site and natural‑resource materials that it would otherwise deliver to the Conservation Commission.