Quincy ZBA continues garage-variance hearing after neighbors and board raise size and future-use concerns

The Quincy City Zoning Board of Appeals on July 22 continued the application from homeowner Andrew Childs to Sept. 9 after members said the proposed two-car garage with storage above at 24 Vershiler Street is too large for the lot and raised concerns the second floor could be later converted to living space.

The applicant, Andrew Childs of 24 Vershiler Street, described the project as a two-car garage (28 feet by 26 feet) with interior stairs and a second-floor storage area, not currently wired or plumbed for living space. "We're just looking for a way that gives us a little more breathing room," Childs said, adding that construction costs make building a single- or two-story foundation essentially the same.

Board members repeatedly questioned the height and massing. One member said the structure "is too tall" and likened the proposed size to a house rather than a garage. Another member said the board would accept a two-car garage with modest storage above but not the robust second floor shown in the plans. The board noted parts of the second-floor cross-section measure about 8 feet 8 inches to the underside of the roof framing and as low as about 6 feet 1 inch at the eaves.

Neighbors and abutters were mixed but several neighbors who received notice wrote letters of support and the applicant said many immediate neighbors had signed supporting letters. At the hearing, at least one neighbor said the existing garage is an "eyesore" and supported replacing it. Other residents at the meeting urged the board to limit the size and to add a condition preventing future conversion to dwelling space without further approvals.

The board also reviewed a departmental memorandum from the Department of Public Works noting a five-year moratorium on reopening parts of some streets (a detail discussed during the hearing) and said timing of street work could affect when any construction could begin.

After discussion, a motion to continue the matter to Sept. 9, 2025, carried unanimously. The board recorded no final vote on the variance request itself; the continued date was set to allow the applicant time to consider revisions and to provide the board and neighbors additional information.

The applicant's presentation and the board's comments focused on scale, the visual character of the Montclair neighborhood, and whether a future conversion to living space could occur once municipal services (water/sewer) or street openings changed. The applicant said the proposed second-floor area currently has no plumbing or utilities and that he would return if he sought conversion to living space.

The Zoning Board closed public testimony for the evening on this item and formally continued the application to the Sept. 9, 2025 meeting.