Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Change Of Use Two Family topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Quincy ZBA continues 183 Norfolk St application amid neighbor concern that addition amounts to two houses
Summary
The board continued an application to convert 183 Norfolk St from a single family to a two‑family with a two‑story rear addition and reworked retaining wall, citing neighborhood concerns about massing, parking and whether the design effectively creates two separate houses; hearing continued to June 24.
The Quincy Zoning Board of Appeals on May 27 continued a contested application for 183 Norfolk St after residents and some board members raised objections to the size, design and parking of the proposed project.
Architect Bonnie Tan of JCBT Architect presented a plan to keep the existing front house and add a two‑story structure at the rear connected by an internal link; the applicant said the intent was to retain the front house for an elderly in‑law occupant while adding a new, attached living unit behind it. The proposal would increase gross living area substantially in the rear and, according to the application materials, result in a total of about 4,700 square feet combined and five bedrooms/five baths across the site. The architect said the rear roofline might be about a foot higher than the front due to slope, and that the team could match the ridge if the board preferred.
Neighbors and several board members objected that the design reads as two separate houses on one lot rather than a single, cohesive building. Speakers said the scheme circumvents subdivision intent, creates a large massing increase on the lot, and could amount to de facto two single‑family homes. Board members also expressed parking concerns and called the tandem parking arrangement awkward; DPW submitted review comments asking for impervious‑area calculations, surface runoff and grading/utility plans and as‑built submissions at project completion.
Letters in support from nearby residents were entered into the record; the board nonetheless concluded that the application required redesign and additional information. A board motion to continue the matter to June 24 carried. The board asked the applicant to return with revised materials, clarifications on parking and retaining‑wall work, and any required conservation/DEP or building‑department submittals.
