Zoning board denies short-term rental permit at 114 Curtis Ave after neighbors cite absentee ownership and parking concerns

The Quincy Zoning Board of Appeals on Sept. 9 voted to deny a special permit that would have allowed Bao Trinh to operate a residential short-term rental at 114 Curtis Avenue.

Trinh told the board he purchased and converted the property to a two-family unit several years earlier and that his mother lives in one of the units. He said he planned to operate short-term rentals from the second unit because he had difficulty finding a long-term tenant. "Currently my mother stay in the first unit and the second unit, I plan now to do short term rental," Trinh said.

Multiple neighbors and an abutter who identified themselves at the hearing opposed the request, citing a history of prolonged construction, periods when the site was left untidy and concerns about congestion and public safety on Curtis Avenue. Terry Sullivan, who said he is a homeowner and abutter at 120 Curtis Avenue, told the board he believes the original 2021 application to convert the property was submitted as owner-occupied while the applicant did not actually live at the address. "Mr. Trinh has never lived at 114 Curtis Ave," Sullivan said.

Other neighbors described crowded, one-way streets with limited parking, ambulance and delivery access issues and past incidents when driveways were blocked. Joanne Castinelli of 96 Curtis Ave said, "Parking is very difficult. This street ... is dangerous for the children." Felicia Bridal of 98 Curtis Ave cited security and nightly disturbance concerns she attributed to a short-term occupancy episode near her home.

Ward 2 City Councilor Richard Ash said he had heard from residents and had discussed neighborhood concerns with Trinh before the hearing. "It's hard to police, they're hard to control and I believe that's why the city ... require that you live in that property as well," Ash told the board.

Board members referenced the zoning requirement that short-term rental permits generally require owner occupancy and also noted the length and condition of prior construction on the site. The chair summarized the neighborhood history and said the property had taken nearly three years to complete construction and had been left in a state of disrepair at times. The board moved to deny the special permit; the motion passed at the hearing.

The denial record notes the applicant was not living at the property and the board cited neighborhood impacts and the applicant’s construction history as reasons for voting against the request.