Zoning board approves 48‑unit, 5‑story development at 92 Willard Street with parking and traffic conditions

The Zoning Board of Appeals voted to allow a special permit and dimensional variances for a five‑story, 48‑unit residential development at 92 Willard Street (triangular parcel bounded by Willard, Quarry and Robertson streets), subject to conditions addressing parking and traffic mitigation.

Edward Fleming, counsel for applicant 622 Quarry Street LLC, said the site—approximately 34,107 square feet and currently underused gravel and small structures—had undergone planning‑board site‑plan review and was reduced in scope during that process from a 58‑unit, six‑story proposal to the current 48‑unit, five‑story design. The project team includes manager Michael Kiley (Heritage Companies), architect David Siebert (BKA Architects) and civil engineer Carlos Goldfield (consultant). The filing also includes a plan to remove an on‑site granite building; counsel told the board the granite elements can be dismantled and reconstructed at the Quincy Granite Workers Museum.

Architect David Siebert described two levels of parking: a garage entry at the Quarry Street side with 47 enclosed spaces on that lower garage level and a separate Willard Street level containing 28 spaces and supporting amenities (bicycle storage, trash/loading). The developers said the design provides 75 enclosed spaces overall and includes seven visitor spaces, designated and signed. City peer reviewers and the planning board reviewed drainage, traffic and site details; civil engineer Carlos Goldfield said the stormwater design routes roof runoff to a subsurface treatment/collection system sized to meet MassDEP water‑quality and recharge requirements, and that the proposal reduces peak runoff compared with existing conditions.

The applicant agreed to provide a $30,000 contribution to the city for a traffic‑safety study targeted at the neighborhood corridors neighbors identified. Multiple neighbors spoke in opposition, citing building mass, insufficient green space and concerns that parking or traffic could spill into nearby residential streets. Supporters urged the board to consider tax revenue and additional housing supply. The planning board previously approved site plan review and a parking waiver; counsel stated the Zoning Board was not being asked for parking relief and that the proposal meets a 1.75 parking‑spaces‑per‑unit ratio the planning board accepted for this project; the planning‑board review and city traffic peer review informed that conclusion.

During deliberations the board added a condition the applicant include a clause in every residential lease that assigns a designated parking space to each unit and prevents the owner from renting spaces to non‑residents; the applicant agreed to that language. The board then moved to allow the petition with the added parking condition and the motion passed on a voice vote.