Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Residential Development topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Quincy Zoning Board of Appeals continues 41 Moore Street townhouse proposal after neighbors object
Summary
The Quincy Zoning Board of Appeals continued a variance request to demolish a single-family house and build a three-story, two-unit townhouse at 41 Moore Street after neighbors and board members raised concerns about size, massing and parking. The applicant was asked to return with revised plans on April 8.
Quincy Zoning Board of Appeals continued a proposal to demolish a single-family dwelling and build a three-story, two-unit townhouse with garages under the building at 41 Moore Street after neighbors and several board members said the design and scale overwhelm the block.
The applicant, architect Jim Chen of JCPT (JPC) Architect, told the board the plan would replace the existing single-story house with two side-by-side townhouse units, each about 2,000 square feet, with two garage spaces per unit and two additional surface spaces, for six on-site parking spaces. Chen said the project would be 31 feet tall in a Residence B zoning district that allows up to 35 feet and that the proposal requires variances for Article 4 maximum floor area ratio (FAR) and for front-yard paving to allow drive access to the garages. “The residential B zoning district allows up to 35 feet. We're proposing a height of 31 feet,” Chen said.
The board and several residents focused on the building’s visual massing and scale. Karen Fickett, whose house at 45 Moore Street sits next door to the proposed building footprint, said, “I'm dead set against it.” Mario Coronet of 11 Silbert Street said the project is “huge for my neighborhood” and expressed worry about added street parking. Other neighbors and speakers said the mansard roof and the number of upper-level windows make the building look larger than nearby one- and one-and-a-half–story homes.
Councilor Richard C. Ash, Ward 2, submitted a written comment read into the record that said he hosted a community meeting and that neighbors’ main concerns were height, bulk, parking and loss of green space; he wrote that the project team revised plans to add more green space in front but that some neighbors remained concerned about overall size and mass.
Board members suggested design and program changes to reduce perceived bulk: removing or reducing some third-floor windows on the mansard roof, replacing a three-story arrangement with a two-story configuration, and considering pavers rather than full paving in the front yard. A board member said a smaller two-story building with reduced third-floor living area and parking concentrated to the sides would be more compatible with the block; another emphasized that the project’s FAR (the applicant estimated about 0.55 where 0.40 is allowed) was the primary zoning nonconformity.
The board voted to continue the matter to April 8 and asked the applicant to return with revised plans and requested materials (including stormwater and utility details referenced in an engineering review). The applicant was asked to provide the requested materials at least a week before the continued hearing.
The continuation means no variance or permit was granted; the board recorded the continuation to the April 8 hearing for further review and public comment.
