Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Residential Infill topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Quincy ZBA approves two‑family at 795 Hancock Street with five parking spaces, limits on fence height
Summary
The Quincy Zoning Board of Appeals approved a variance to construct a two‑family duplex at 795 Hancock Street with five on‑site parking spaces and conditions restricting fence height and requiring bicycle accommodations. DPW requested further site and drainage details be submitted prior to construction.
The Quincy Zoning Board of Appeals on March 25 approved a variance to build a two‑family dwelling with five parking spaces at 795 Hancock Street, subject to conditions that fencing not obstruct traffic sight lines and that the developer provide bicycle storage.
The project attorney, Patrick Foley, told the board the lot is 4,400 square feet in a Business B zoning district and that the applicant, identified in the presentation as Mr. Nutley, planned a two‑unit building “to blend into the neighborhood.” Architect Brian Saluti described the units as two‑bedroom flats with roughly 1,200 and 1,300 square feet respectively and said the building’s height from grade to peak would be about 32 feet.
Why it matters: the vacant Hancock Street lot sits between St. Anne Church and Central Junior High and is within walking distance of the Wollaston MBTA station. Board members and neighbors focused discussion on parking, pedestrian safety at the corner lot and on landscaping to soften a commercial corridor where buildings typically front the sidewalk.
Board and public discussion centered on parking and storage. A resident, John K. Bridal of 121 Clay Street, asked why the plan included five parking spaces for two units; Foley replied, “The fifth spot will be for visitors. Each unit will have two spots.” Several board members asked for ground‑level storage for bikes and strollers; the applicant agreed to investigate adding on‑grade storage or a bike rack.
DPW submitted a written review that was read into the record. The department requested: a calculation of increased impervious area; existing‑conditions and proposed grading, drainage and utility plans; details on how surface runoff will be discharged and treated; dimensions and grades for paving and driveway entrances; and as‑built plans with a digital file upon completion.
On a motion to allow the variance with the stated restrictions on fence height and an accommodation for bicycles, the board voted in favor. The board did not record individual named tallies in the transcript; the motion carried as presented.
The applicant and the architect must respond to DPW’s comments and provide final site, drainage and construction details before permits are issued. Landscaping shown in the submission — including cherry trees at the front and a Japanese lilac in back — was presented as part of the package and will be incorporated into the record.
