Quincy ZBA delays decision on 66 Middlesex Street variance after neighbors object to third-floor dormer

The City of Quincy Zoning Board of Appeals on May 13 continued a request by JCB Architect LLC and the owner of 66 Middlesex Street for a variance related to a proposed rear addition and a full-width dormer that would raise the visible height of the dwelling.

Marty Akins, chairman of the City of Quincy Zoning Board of Appeals, opened the hearing on DBA 25-10, introduced the applicant’s representative and allowed testimony from the owner and neighbors. Jim Chen, of JCB Architect LLC, told the board the proposal includes a 7.4-foot rear extension and originally a full-width dormer; he said, “we're hoping to, reduce the dormer down to, like, maybe a 6 feet wide or, or even completely removing dormer so it will maintain a 2 and a half stories rather than 3 story.”

Nut graf: The board delayed action after Ward 6 officials and multiple neighbors voiced opposition to the visible bulk of a third-floor dormer on a 3,200-square-foot lot, raised questions about wetlands jurisdiction and asked the applicant to submit revised plans and site markings for the proposed rear addition. The board set the matter for the May 27 agenda to allow staff to confirm conservation/DEP jurisdiction and for the applicant to produce new plans and stake the backyard addition.

Background and what was proposed The subject lot sits at the corner of Bayside Road and Middlesex Street and is 3,200 square feet, described at the hearing as an existing nonconforming lot with a nonconforming structure. Chen said the project would push the rear of the house out 7.4 feet; the overall house width was stated in the presentation and setbacks were discussed with reference to a remaining setback of roughly 13 feet on one side. Chen described the originally proposed full-width third-floor dormer and the owner’s preference to retain a 2½‑story appearance if the dormer could be reduced or removed.

Owner’s statement Margie Fitzpatrick, the owner, said she intends the house as her retirement home and repeatedly denied any intent to operate short-term rentals: “I can assure you, at 70 years of age, I'm not opening an Airbnb.” She said a first-floor bedroom and bath were important to her for accessibility and aging in place, and that she would accept not receiving the dormer if necessary.

Neighbor concerns and official comments Councilor Harris (Ward 6) urged the zoning board to pause further action until the City of Quincy Conservation Commission and the Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) — specifically the Wetlands Protection Act process — had reviewed the proposal, saying the project “abuts a dirt road on Bayside Road and the Squamom Bay Saltwater Cove” and therefore could be subject to DEP jurisdiction and a DEP file number or order of conditions. The councilor said he had not received a phone call from the applicant’s team and noted outreach lapses to the ward councilor.

Several neighbors who live adjacent to or near 66 Middlesex Street told the board they oppose adding a third-floor dormer because of height, privacy and precedents on nearby lots. Arthur Laporte, who lives at 58 Middlesex Street next door, said he opposed the third floor and questioned the need for the variance. Other speakers from the neighborhood cited a nearby example where a third-floor addition changed the character of a house and led to intrusive views into adjacent homes.

Board and staff guidance; next steps Department of Public Works provided a written review and reported no comments at this time. Board members expressed that the primary neighborhood objection was to the third-floor dormer rather than to the modest rear addition. The board asked the applicant to provide revised plans removing or significantly reducing the dormer, to stake out the proposed rear addition and to submit any documentation from the Quincy Conservation Commission or DEP. The board continued the hearing to the May 27 agenda and requested new plans be submitted by the Friday prior to that meeting so members would have them in advance.

Formal actions noted at the hearing The board voted earlier in the meeting to waive the reading of minutes from the April 22, 2025 hearing (motion made and seconded; outcome recorded as approved). On the 66 Middlesex Street variance (DBA 25-10), the board took no final vote and continued the hearing to May 27, 2025, while requesting additional materials and site markings from the applicant.

Why it matters The case ties questions about neighborhood scale, aging-in-place housing accommodations and potential wetlands or conservation oversight to the Zoning Board’s review. Board members and neighbors treated the dormer as the primary source of concern because of the lot’s small size and proximity to adjacent properties.

What to expect next The zoning board asked staff to clarify whether the project falls under Conservation Commission/DEP jurisdiction, asked the applicant to stake the proposed rear extension on the property and to supply revised plans showing the reduced or removed dormer. The board will revisit DBA 25-10 at its May 27 meeting.