Developers shrink two Old Colony Ave. proposals, change apartments to condominiums; hearing continued

Developers and their consultants told the Quincy Planning Board on May 21 that two proposed Old Colony Avenue projects have been significantly reduced in size and reconfigured from rental apartments to for‑sale condominiums, and the board continued both hearings to June 25 to allow further coordination with city staff and peer reviewers.

Attorney Edward Fleming, representing Ballston Assets LLC, said the larger parcel at 18–24 & 28 Old Colony Ave. was revised from a six‑story, 94‑unit apartment building to a five‑story development with 62 condominium units and garage parking for 98 vehicles. Architect Brian Donahue said, “we've gone from, 94 units to 62,” and described removal of a full floor and modest footprint adjustments. The bedroom mix for the revised building is 54 two‑bedroom units and 8 one‑bedroom units, according to the presentation.

The applicants said the change raises the parking ratio from the original 1.0 space per unit to 1.58 spaces per unit (98 spaces for 62 units), exceeding the Business C zoning requirement of 1.5 spaces in that district. Civil engineer Carlos Sculte said the project’s stormwater design will hold runoff from a 2‑year event and noted ongoing coordination with the Department of Public Works and city consultants about broader Wollaston area flood‑inundation modeling.

On the smaller lot at 38 Old Colony Ave., the team said the plan was reduced from 27 rental apartments to 19 condominiums; the project will provide 19 on‑site parking spaces (1:1). The applicants added a trash room inside the building in place of a surface dumpster. The 38 Old Colony proposal had been offered earlier as an affordable‑housing project, but the applicant said financial constraints and regulatory differences between apartments and condominiums mean the building no longer qualifies to meet affordable‑housing obligations for the developer’s other Quincy projects.

David Lee, one of the applicants, told the board the switch reflected both “financial” limits and the fact that “apartments and condominiums are treated in different bags” for the developer’s ability to use affordable‑housing credits for other projects. Lee said existing tenants on site have been part of the applicant’s planning considerations and that the developers remain open to pursuing affordable housing in future projects if subsidy options or closer dialogue with city housing officials make it feasible.

Board members questioned rooftop mechanical equipment locations, perimeter lighting and photometrics, and whether a local contractor would be used for construction; staff and the applicants said updated photometrics showing zero foot‑candles at property lines were provided and that the mechanical condensing units are planned for the roof. Applicants also provided an Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) parking analysis; Sculte said ITE research indicates average parking demand for a development this size is far below the proposed 98 spaces (his submission cited averages of 43 spaces and an 80th percentile of 78 for comparable mid‑rise, transit‑served projects).

A member of the public, Danielle Maloney of 100 Sandwich Ave., said she appreciated the reduced unit count but remained concerned about traffic and whether condominium owners (the HOA) will properly manage the new stormwater/maintenance obligations. Fleming and staff confirmed the applicants will work with the Affordable Housing Trust Committee on whether the trust prefers a fee‑in‑lieu or another approach for the projects’ inclusionary requirement; Fleming said the larger building would provide six inclusionary units and the smaller building two, pending final trust committee decisions.

Because the applicants said they are still addressing DPW and peer‑review comments related to stormwater and traffic, the board voted to continue both planning‑board cases — Planning Board case 2025‑O6 (18–24 & 28 Old Colony Ave.) and 2025‑O7 (38 Old Colony Ave.) — to the board’s June 25 meeting. The motion to continue was made and seconded in public session and approved by the board.

The continuation preserves opportunities for the applicants and city departments to resolve outstanding engineering review issues and to provide the board with final civil, stormwater and photometrics plans at the next hearing.