Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Residential Addition Variance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Quincy board allows withdrawal of garage variance application at 132 Shore Ave
Summary
An applicant for a one-car garage and mudroom at 132 Shore Ave withdrew the zoning application after neighbors raised setback and seawall concerns; the board approved the withdrawal without prejudice.
The Quincy Zoning Board of Appeals on May 27 allowed the withdrawal of a variance application to build a one-car garage and mudroom at 132 Shore Ave, after neighbors raised concerns about proximity to property lines, seawall access and emergency access.
The applicant’s architect, Douglas Jack, told the board the project would add a one-car garage off the existing driveway and a small mudroom and sunroom, set about 5 feet from the west property line. "It's as small as we can get it to have a 7-foot garage door," Jack said in his presentation. Homeowners represented by Jack said past winter falls motivated the request for a direct-entry garage: "We really need the direct entry garage," a homeowner told the board, describing a fall on icy steps that injured her husband.
Neighbors and an elected official urged the board to deny the expansion. Mark Whelan, who lives across diagonally from the property, said the proposed 5-foot setback is “way too close” and raised emergency access and seawall repair concerns. Councilor Dave McCarthy, who visited the site, said the proposal would be “right up against” adjacent properties and that the neighborhood’s character should be protected. Other board members and nearby residents echoed concerns about the 5-foot setback and the proposed 15-foot garage width; the architect later said the plan was revised to a roughly 12-foot-wide garage with a 5.2-foot offset.
After discussion of options — including withdrawing without prejudice or voting on the application — the applicant asked to withdraw. A board member moved to allow withdrawal; the motion was seconded and approved by voice vote. The board recorded that a withdrawn application may be refiled either as a different project immediately or, if the applicant wishes to submit the same plan, after two years.
No formal zoning relief was granted. The board noted a DPW letter stating it had reviewed the proposal and had no comments. The hearing was closed following the withdrawal.
Votes at a glance: The board voted to allow the applicant to withdraw the application; the motion carried by voice vote (all in favor).
