Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Redevelopment topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
TAC delays action on 134 Pleasant Street redevelopment after DPW raises sewer, drainage and easement questions
Summary
The TAC postponed final action on DoubleMC LLC’s mixed‑use redevelopment at 134 Pleasant Street, asking the applicant to provide sewer/storm separation plans, utility coordination and documentation for proposed changes to city parking and easements before returning next month.
The Technical Advisory Committee on Jan. 6 reviewed a proposal by DoubleMC LLC to expand an existing structure and build a new structure for mixed residential and commercial use at 134 Pleasant Street in the historic district. Applicant representatives presented zoning and easement documentation and proposed reconfigurations affecting nearby city‑owned parking and courthouse spaces.
John Shagen and the project team described proposed changes to the Parrot Avenue parking lot and measures to keep seven courthouse parking spaces intact. Shagen said the plan includes adding three public parking spaces overall and separating courthouse parking and fire station access from the public lot. The applicant noted the proposal is conditional on city council approval for work on city property and easements.
DPW’s initial review identified major issues: the existing site uses combined sewer flow and the applicant must separate stormwater from sewer lines; proposed connections to a courthouse manhole are on city property and require city approvals; utilities in the basement and proposed foundation drains must be shown; and additional details were requested on catch basin locations, drainage separation and traffic/pedestrian safety near the bank drive‑through. “This is really our major issue with this site,” DPW staff said, urging sewer/storm separation and clearer drainage routing.
The committee closed public comment and moved to postpone final action until the applicant provides the requested drainage separations, utility confirmations with Unatil and other plan corrections and coordinates the proposal for city council review. The TAC suggested the applicant include two alternative sheets in the plan set reflecting the project with council approval and an alternative without it to guide the Planning Board and council review.
Next steps: applicant to provide revised plans showing sewer/storm separation, utility coordination and clear alternatives for council approval; TAC will revisit the proposal next month.
