Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Conversion Two Family Addition topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board continues 183 Norfolk St. plan amid concerns that addition reads as second house
Summary
An application to add a two‑story rear addition and convert a single‑family home to two‑family at 183 Norfolk Street was continued after board members and neighbors said the rear work reads like a separate house and raised parking and scale concerns.
The Quincy Zoning Board of Appeals on May 27 continued a proposal for 183 Norfolk St. that would convert an existing single‑family dwelling into a two‑family configuration with a two‑story rear addition and reworked retaining wall to add parking. The board set the matter for continued review and required revised design materials.
Architect Bonnie Tan described the lot as roughly 8,055 square feet and said the applicant seeks to retain the front unit for elderly family members while constructing a new attached living unit to the rear. Tan said the proposed total gross living area for both structures would be roughly 4,800 square feet and that the project seeks a floor‑area‑ratio (FAR) variance and relief for parking. "The proposed structure will be about 4,000 little less than 800, 4 thousand 8 hundred square feet," Tan said in her presentation; she also told the board the rear roofline would be about one foot higher than the front because of slope, but that the ridge could be matched if required.
Board members and neighbors criticized the design as appearing to be two separate houses connected by a small link or breezeway rather than a single cohesive dwelling. Several members said that, as drawn, the project looked like two distinct homes on one lot and that approving it as proposed would circumvent the city’s subdivision and single‑family protections. Board member comments focused on bedroom counts, parking logistics (tandem spaces), and the visibility of the new massing from the street.
The applicant presented letters from nine neighbors in support and a DPW review letter listing requested stormwater and grading clarifications; opponents at the hearing said the proposed scale is excessive and that bedroom counts implied by the plans were higher than the applicant’s summary. The board asked for a revised design that better integrates the rear addition with the existing frontage, a clearer parking plan, corrected site dimensions and a reduction in bedroom count or clearer limits on bedroom use. The board continued the item to June 24 and set a deadline for design materials to be delivered to staff by June 13 at 9:00 a.m.
Votes at a glance: Motion to continue the matter to June 24, 2025; motion passed by voice vote. The board instructed the applicant to submit revised plans and to address parking, FAR and design integration prior to the continued hearing.
