Planning Board continues review of proposed six‑story McGrath Highway project after public concerns on parking and drainage

The Quincy Planning Board continued the public hearing on Dec. 18 for a proposal to demolish the former nursing home at 11 McGrath Highway and build a six‑story residential building with 50 units and 64 parking spaces. The hearing was continued to Jan. 15, 2025, to allow additional neighborhood outreach and for the applicant to respond to peer‑review and city engineering comments.

Galvin QS Development described the plan as a six‑story building with five residential floors over a one‑level parking garage; the site would include 12 one‑bedroom and 38 two‑bedroom units with a total of 64 parking spaces (40 surface and 24 garage). The applicant said vehicle access would be from the rear via Bigelow Street because McGrath Highway has a median and does not permit left turns. The building is proposed in a Quincy Center zoning district where up to 10 stories may be allowed; the applicant is seeking three special permits from the Planning Board: a Quincy Center special permit (Title 17 §8.3), a floodplain special permit and a parking‑waiver special permit (Title 17 §5.1.17).

The project team told the board the design responds to the site’s grade change—Bigelow Street sits approximately 8–9 feet lower than McGrath Highway—and that the building would present as five stories from McGrath while appearing six stories at the rear. They described upgraded exterior finishes, balconies, and a two‑story lobby and said the building will be all‑electric with heat pumps and EV charging at the parking level. The team described stormwater and drainage measures including proprietary water‑quality structures and a design to allow the garage floor to be set in a way consistent with FEMA requirements for structures in floodplain overlay districts.

Public commenters focused on parking, lot‑line proximity and drainage. Pamela Olinsky, representing owners at 21 McGrath Highway, said past nursing‑home uses strained adjacent parking and said residents worry that the proposed 64 spaces will be insufficient compared with an ordinance requirement of 88 spaces; she asked the board to consider impacts and possible measures such as gating. Other commenters echoed concerns about drainage because Town Brook runs through and behind the site and because the area has a history of culvert and capacity issues. Correspondence from abutters and from councilors McCarthy and Ash requested community meetings and careful review of drainage and tree impacts.

The applicant said some recent condominium projects provided evidence that ownership buildings can have lower parking utilization (one cited project had empty exterior spaces), and noted the project’s proximity to public transit and a nearby parking garage. The applicant also offered to meet with councilors and neighborhood representatives; the board and applicant agreed to schedule community meetings in early January and to return with responses to peer‑review and outstanding civil engineering comments.

Planning staff confirmed that the Conservation Commission issued an Order of Conditions for the project and that the Planning Department had received peer‑review comments that the applicant will address. The board voted unanimously to continue the hearing to Jan. 15, 2025, and asked the applicant to coordinate community meetings with the relevant city councilors and to address the engineering and drainage peer‑review comments before returning.