[{"_1":2,"_111":-5,"_112":-5},"loaderData",{"_3":4,"_26":27},"root",{"_5":6,"_17":10,"_18":19,"_20":21,"_22":10,"_23":-5,"_24":-5,"_25":10},"user",{"_7":8,"_9":10,"_11":10,"_12":-5,"_13":-5,"_14":15,"_16":-5},"roles",[],"isAuthenticated",false,"isPremium","planName","subscriptionStatus","featureFlags",{},"insightsBudget","isDevelopmentHost","userPreferences",{},"recaptchaSiteKey","6LcvOJcUAAAAAHsB-gPGfGktcRlKpH7OTIU_dMTD","isImpersonating","impersonation","affiliateStatus","isFreedomPortal","routes/v2/article/layout",{"_28":29,"_30":31},"notFound",true,"relatedArticles",[32,75,87,99],{"_33":34,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":40,"_41":42,"_43":44,"_45":46,"_47":48,"_49":50,"_51":52,"_53":54,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":60,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":66,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},"mediaId",6263733,"mediaKeyId","3102925-1e30617b71905e4a258e1844fe0d34ce","parentId",3102925,"title","Developer proposes 20‑unit mixed‑use building on Park Street; planning board tables decision","audioSeconds",3763,"startMs",842000,"endMs",4605000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=3102925-1e30617b71905e4a258e1844fe0d34ce&start=842&end=4605","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3102925-1e30617b71905e4a258e1844fe0d34ce/thumbnail_842000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6263733/Chelsea-City/Suffolk-County/Massachusetts/Developer-proposes-20unit-mixeduse-building-on-Park-Street-planning-board-tables-decision","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6263733-06e0bf535f1dd55bbfb4e2cb3e517a9b/orig.mp4?Expires=1770445373&Signature=PNuhkc2U84kFC4OpuVV5cJ5uOWUdo3AT3nnIOWrWjU5PrBQ3aj~xHzLVRGeJsKiW1Y5-NcabXQ52utrpXGXoAL7wJZVY5PkcAsa82Z7QMZF2IINuWQ-8YhZP4p86kDv~gFIS0GyxRdHRYRU1MpD6nTOq73a1nbFTVUq2fefDGhvsLOyZqQzDQ-xbZssZBTjn5hXIOLvAzn3kaYASPPcpe2EB2yWKl6Q8V~0AuGSp1lCD4j1nKTz2Dr4CcZCNa~KmIQ0Nh4cHj-RnBeBsD9r7aZRD~bZCZrYHmDTNzl6w0TZ-7KuGzIqR73OFJRYOpUka2K1Aw6LxPMMdfyNV3B-JUA__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","Chelsea City, MA","date","2025-04-24T00:00:00Z","article","A proposal to replace several existing buildings at 105–115 Park Street, 12 Essex Street and 1 Ellsworth Street with a 20‑unit, mixed‑use building drew lengthy testimony and was continued by the Chelsea City Planning Board.

The petition, filed as Case 2024‑26 by 115 Park Street LLC, would demolish existing on‑site buildings and pavement and build a 20‑unit residential building with seven street‑level commercial spaces and a two‑level podium parking structure with about 50 vehicle spaces, project engineer Rick Salvo said. The site is roughly 24,686 square feet and fronts Park, Essex, Congress and Ellsworth streets.

The developer’s attorney, Anthony Rossi, told the board the building design includes smaller one‑bedroom units to increase foot traffic and compliance with the city’s Broadway Corridor design: “we have a total of 15 2 bedrooms… and then we have 95 1 bedrooms,” Rossi said during his presentation. Rossi said the project would provide 18 inclusionary units under Chelsea’s inclusionary housing rules and that some ground‑floor spaces are intended for small retailers rather than large restaurants.

Why it matters

If approved, the project would redevelop a prominent corner parcel close to multiple bus routes and the Broadway corridor. Supporters say the design follows recent city planning goals for small storefronts and higher housing density; neighbors said the scale, parking and unit mix would not meet local needs.

What developers and staff told the board

Rick Salvo (Engineering Alliance) described the site layout and drainage plans, saying the project would add Caltech chambers to capture roof runoff and reduce on‑site runoff volume. Scott Thornton (Vanessa & Associates), the traffic consultant, said traffic counts and a multi‑intersection study are under way: “we have conducted some traffic counts. We have, worked in consultation with mister De Priest who helped us establish a study area… we’re looking at 7 intersections basically around the perimeter of the site.” He told the board the full traffic impact report would be finished shortly.

Rossi said parking will be managed by the building owner rather than via condominium parking rights: assigned spaces would be included in leases if the owner chooses to do so. Rossi also said the project was designed in coordination with the city’s Broadway Corridor design standards and that some dimensional variances are minor and tied to the irregular lot shape.

Public comment and neighborhood concerns

More than a dozen residents and community groups spoke. Common concerns were building scale, inadequate parking, limited family‑sized units, displacement of existing businesses (a laundromat and a grocery), potential drainage impacts and insufficient bilingual outreach.

Sandy Maynard, a nearby resident, told the board the proposal “is not meeting our community’s needs. Only 18 out of the 120 units are affordable. And that really is a token gesture.” City Councilor Manuel Teshe (District 7) said the councilor’s office supports development that benefits “the community that we want,” and urged more two‑ and three‑bedroom units and added public space.

Several neighbors cited local traffic congestion at school arrival and departure times and questioned whether 50 parking spaces would be adequate for the proposed mix of market and inclusionary units. Others asked whether the existing laundromat and market had been offered space in the new building; Rossi said the developer had spoken to those tenants and offered commercial space in the proposed project.

Board action and next steps

Planning board members voted to table the petition to the board’s May meeting so the board could review the forthcoming traffic study and additional materials including a planting/landscape plan and further clarification of buffer treatments. The motion to continue to the May meeting carried with an affirmative vote.

The developer and project team said they would provide the full traffic report within about one to two weeks and will return to the next board meeting with requested materials.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","Chelsea City Planning Board Meeting 4-22-25","oneSentenceSummary","A proposal to replace multiple Park Street parcels with a 20‑unit, mixed‑use building drew neighborhood opposition over scale, parking and unit mix; the Chelsea Planning Board voted to defer action to its May meeting.","taxTitle","Chelsea City, Suffolk County, Massachusetts","taxId",78275,"location","headline","","shortSummary",{"_33":76,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":77,"_41":78,"_43":79,"_45":80,"_47":81,"_49":82,"_51":83,"_53":84,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":85,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":86,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6263718,"Planning board recommends discontinuing unused Merritt Road right‑of‑way to allow adjacent owner to pursue redevelopment",280,7332000,7612000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=3102925-1e30617b71905e4a258e1844fe0d34ce&start=7332&end=7612","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3102925-1e30617b71905e4a258e1844fe0d34ce/thumbnail_7332000.jpg","/articles/6263718/Chelsea-City/Suffolk-County/Massachusetts/Planning-board-recommends-discontinuing-unused-Merritt-Road-rightofway-to-allow-adjacent-owner-to-pursue-redevelopment","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6263718-99b8254707693a4a677dc64f9a8094cf/orig.mp4?Expires=1770445373&Signature=eSo3Z2PUqRhA7SEeozbaBEPJOMTxcJ0QQyyggLFSI1KvQOXxIhHqh5rHwNJu0nYK8VHS7lw-6f8OCWCDmoxdDCMWadZ0-QWxmFVlJgk7CdJLrAQbs3sRkhK~lwqBj705W6pps1z5NQ9D~ho7RiNXrVBCtZIQyZlOlKyoaSVYFJzpg8f8LD~HAh4Bnew0Vueo292iScIW-iIeGKo9KqRwyvHAdG4yZR-0kS~kD0fZZmWb1~4-6NdejptxNC2M1U9XfkW8tGsoNx16izVCnsl4WbGEn1ZjhCkIXqslg6Tm1cp3PoCpOe2lA5MnzjsU9UUF7WQ-EVV2K2xXEVIVVV6Izw__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The Chelsea Planning Board voted to recommend discontinuing a 50‑foot paper street known as Merritt Road, a right‑of‑way that has never been constructed and currently reads as a wooded strip between Galluli Road and Webster Avenue.

Planning staff said the property owner who abuts the right‑of‑way owns the adjacent vacant lots and the existing commercial building at 121 Webster Avenue; the owner has indicated an intent to pursue a larger residential development that would require a revised planned development and other regulatory approvals. The board’s vote is a recommendation to City Council; the final legal discontinuance must be adopted by council action.

Why it matters

Discontinuing a paper street is a procedural step that can clear title or remove a municipal barrier to redevelopment. Board members said the right‑of‑way is dormant and does not provide necessary public access in its current form.

Board decision

After brief discussion, a member moved that the board recommend discontinuing the public right‑of‑way. The motion passed on an affirmative voice vote. The board noted that any redevelopment of the adjoining property will still require planning, zoning and permitting review and that the discontinuance does not by itself authorize construction.","The board voted to recommend that the City Council discontinue a 50‑foot paper street (Merritt Road) that has not been developed; the discontinuance clears a procedural step so the adjacent owner can pursue a larger mixed‑use development that would require further approvals.",{"_33":88,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":89,"_41":90,"_43":91,"_45":92,"_47":93,"_49":94,"_51":95,"_53":96,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":97,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":98,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6263722,"Planning board treats Enterprise Rent‑A‑Car site changes as minor; adds traffic, landscaping and fuel‑tank updates",203,6599000,6802000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=3102925-1e30617b71905e4a258e1844fe0d34ce&start=6599&end=6802","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3102925-1e30617b71905e4a258e1844fe0d34ce/thumbnail_6599000.jpg","/articles/6263722/Chelsea-City/Suffolk-County/Massachusetts/Planning-board-treats-Enterprise-RentACar-site-changes-as-minor-adds-traffic-landscaping-and-fueltank-updates","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6263722-8610c64879f6156bce061af84a877597/orig.mp4?Expires=1770445373&Signature=hbQbJo5y9PWy4N3eEtQpBzIHIpDNTFJ3mJBF2pwFq-5kVJ07VoT7sHLWwhRbLVgYtWhw6OM8cj5HzMDm~Y7rza2MYuY-UouQ9A6nxgrdMgcZO~8wIXdnQDuV4J4weEmd78JRknQWsgv9pfFBCFHMfA-mNiEesBjtJqZhcLI6bVs23xVHJlUZ1-Pzac5-yJiGG5I34YmJEKfAoptEDxLONCbvN860WfqV57ByO2Vr~giLO2ofDHnF7zmB0Peged0BE4XxTqmGyGd4cZ9C7SQT45XOJ5TyRHncni0OffCWmxxXwzT5Xqg2F~wZNRj-EXEQ672SemapXM77Ib4u115a6g__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Enterprise Rent‑A‑Car asked the Chelsea Planning Board for a modification to its Marginal Street facility that would add truck rental capacity, expand the car‑wash area and split an existing underground fuel tank to provide both regular gasoline and diesel fuel.

Project scope and changes

Scott Rogers of JK HomeGood Engineering briefed the board. The requested changes include demolition of a small existing triangular building, a roughly 1,600‑square‑foot car‑wash addition near Willow Street, reconfiguration of a Marginal Street parking area (including employee and ADA spaces), improved storm drainage via trench drains connecting to an existing basin, and new landscape plantings along Marginal and Willow streets. Rogers said there would be no net increase in impervious surface; the site sits inside an AUL (an actively managed contaminated site) and the plan works within the existing paved footprint.

Fueling and fleet operations

The applicant proposed replacing the site’s single 9,500‑gallon underground storage tank with a split tank to deliver both gasoline and diesel at separate dispensers. Rogers said the permanent tank capacity would not change, and the split would support an incoming fleet relocation from an Enterprise facility on Easton Avenue.

Board finding and vote

After reviewing the materials and staff comments, the planning board determined the requested changes constituted a minor modification to a previously approved site plan rather than a major modification requiring full re‑submission and public re‑notice. A motion to treat the application as a minor site plan revision carried unanimously. The board asked the applicant to file required conservation and drainage documentation with the Conservation Commission and to follow the operation and maintenance plan submitted with the application.

Next steps

The applicant said it plans to finish construction by year‑end and will proceed with Conservation Commission filings and coordination with city staff on final engineering details.","Enterprise requested modifications at its Marginal Street site to add truck rental, a car‑wash addition, a split underground fuel tank (unleaded and diesel), and parking reconfiguration. The Planning Board classified the changes as a minor modification and did not require a new major site plan review.",{"_33":100,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":101,"_41":102,"_43":103,"_45":104,"_47":105,"_49":106,"_51":107,"_53":108,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":109,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":110,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6263727,"Two‑family redesign on Grandview Road prompts neighbor concern about shadows, drainage and parking",1015,4773000,5788000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=3102925-1e30617b71905e4a258e1844fe0d34ce&start=4773&end=5788","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3102925-1e30617b71905e4a258e1844fe0d34ce/thumbnail_4773000.jpg","/articles/6263727/Chelsea-City/Suffolk-County/Massachusetts/Twofamily-redesign-on-Grandview-Road-prompts-neighbor-concern-about-shadows-drainage-and-parking","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6263727-4e67bd8e3f4b147a35bb0f314265a83c/orig.mp4?Expires=1770445373&Signature=egehPJ5M6ddELeGdoPIQHQvhYroS-Cu8YZexdcXm75ELyUxLfei14t4QbaGLT4f4NJ7NQ8ox3wPnB0v-NDuzqgcUL0-Oetb~CdaSO2QLGR-IuRAVIQmZKVujsbSg9o-mIwz~HTbHIWj4rcIC-G-Z8oe3NhYHmPm2O-1zqw8hUwfXSLxGZvZU0FkD2p4iM1YAe1KBeAKsnLOgyikXCaQgyeE-uDIPDUZIXzv96imCuZeTc-tNqJyfvXfMqbtkP2fAJP9vg-G~6qw3Eum1UjTXnsojkbfT2oJp18apaK6A6fl-TCfucwjDegFb-7YNokXXLO~cE7YjOZzpHrGoCUtFsw__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Elmer Castillo returned to the Chelsea Planning Board with a redesigned two‑family proposal for 18 Grandview Road and asked the board to consider a modified plan after neighborhood comments.

Castillo and the project team presented a revised plan that converts a previously proposed duplex arrangement into a stacked two‑family (one unit above the other), reduces building footprint by about four feet on each side, lowers lot coverage from earlier designs and reconfigures the drive and parking so the plan now shows three full parking spaces plus one tandem space. Architect Aldemir Tosca said the redesign preserves more existing vegetation and adds permeable pavers and a recessed patio.

Why it matters

Neighbors said the property sits uphill from several back‑yard lots, and they fear new construction will change daylight, privacy and the local drainage regime. The project will require planning board and zoning board signoffs for special permits and possible variances.

Engineering and drainage details

Civil engineer Len Buford described a proposed infiltration system to capture roof and driveway runoff. He said the design places infiltration chambers under the garage slab and includes a trench drain in front of the driveway to capture surface flows: “we’re gonna be placing it underneath the slab in the garage,” Buford said, and the system was designed for a multi‑year storm; he added the design could be expanded if the board or staff requested greater capacity.

Neighbor concerns

Several abutters said the project would shade existing yards, reduce evening sunlight and exacerbate drainage that already affects downhill basements during large storms; one neighbor showed photographs of current light at her kitchen sink and told the board she would lose that sunlight if the new house were constructed. Neighbors also questioned the practicality of using a tandem parking stall on a narrow residential street and noted multiple new curb cuts recently installed on adjacent parcels.

Board action and next steps

The Planning Board discussed multiple outstanding items, including the shadow study, detailed landscaping and the proposed trench and infiltration details. Board members asked the petitioner to submit clarified shadow study materials and additional landscape and drainage details and requested a written waiver of statutory review timelines if the applicant wanted the board to continue consideration beyond statutory deadlines. Castillo’s team agreed to provide a written waiver by the next morning and the board voted to continue the petition to its May 27 meeting to allow revisions and additional materials to be submitted.","A petitioner seeking to build a two‑family stacked house on 18 Grandview Road revised the design after earlier comments; neighbors raised concerns about shadowing, drainage and curb cuts. The board agreed to continue the petition to the May meeting to allow plan revisions and a written waiver of statutory review timelines.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Developer proposes 20‑unit mixed‑use building on Park Street; planning board tables decision

Planning board recommends discontinuing unused Merritt Road right‑of‑way to allow adjacent owner to pursue redevelopment

Planning board treats Enterprise Rent‑A‑Car site changes as minor; adds traffic, landscaping and fuel‑tank updates

Two‑family redesign on Grandview Road prompts neighbor concern about shadows, drainage and parking