Planning board continues Castillo 18–24 Grandview proposal after concerns on stormwater, parking and scale

The Chelsea Planning Board continued consideration of a proposal from petitioner Elmer Castillo to build a two‑family home at 18 Grandview Road and to address related changes at the adjacent lot, citing unresolved stormwater, parking, topography and neighborhood compatibility concerns.

The applicant’s attorney and design team presented a revised plan that eliminated two exterior staircases and relocated a single shared stairwell to the building center, and that included early conceptual stormwater measures and tandem parking for two cars per unit. Board members and neighbors questioned whether the submitted materials adequately showed how the new building would sit in the block’s steep topography and whether proposed drainage and parking arrangements would cause run‑off or circulation problems on this narrow street.

Attorney Rebecca Edmondson represented the applicant and said the owner, Elmer Castillo, has acquired the adjacent lot and is proposing a side‑by‑side two‑family so each of his children could occupy a unit. Edmondson and the designer said the site plan shows a proposed groundwater/rain collection system, three rear roof drains and a plan to keep runoff from reaching the street; they said a civil engineer has been engaged but the board had not yet received a final engineer’s stormwater report.

Neighbors at the meeting raised a range of concerns. A homeowner whose property borders the vacant lot said the new structure would reduce sunlight in her backyard and brought up prior sewer capacity calls to the city. Another neighbor representing several signatories noted the street’s narrowness, documented curb‑cut and towing incidents, and urged an independent shadow/street‑level study and clearer renderings showing the new building in context. Speakers also asked whether tandem garage parking would complicate backing maneuvers on Grandview and whether deliveries and crane placement for prefabricated sections would require a traffic management plan.

Board members and staff asked for more complete technical documentation before taking action. The board asked the applicant to provide a full stormwater management plan prepared by the retained civil engineer, more realistic site renderings and street‑level context images showing the proposed building next to neighboring houses, an exterior lighting plan and a landscape plan, and a traffic/turnaround plan for crane and delivery staging. The fire department and Department of Public Works comments had not been received by staff at the time of the meeting; the board flagged both as necessary reviews.

At the end of the hearing a member moved to continue the case to the board’s next meeting to allow the applicant time to supply the requested materials; another member seconded and the board voted to continue the application. The applicant agreed to return with the stormwater study, contour/topographic elevations shown with neighboring buildings, shadow/sun studies, back‑out/turn radius drawings for garage egress, and more detailed renderings.

Clarifying details recorded at the meeting include: historic lot measurements (the applicant’s counsel recounted that 18 Grandview was created in 1988 at roughly 4,131 square feet and 14 Grandview at 4,124 square feet); proposed frontage of 50 feet where 60 is required and a 10‑foot front setback where 20 is required; a proposed building width of 37 feet; a proposed flat roof with three rear drains; and tandem garages providing two parking stalls per unit. The board requested that the applicant coordinate a traffic management plan for prefabricated deliveries and crane operations.

Speakers quoted or referenced in this coverage are listed below.