Quincy ZBA continues hearing on 66 Middlesex Street after neighbors, councilor raise concerns about third-floor dormer

Quincy Zoning Board of Appeals members continued a hearing on a variance application for 66 Middlesex Street on May 13, 2025, after neighbors and a Ward 6 councilor raised concerns about a proposed full-width third-floor dormer and possible jurisdiction under the state Wetlands Protection Act and the City of Quincy Conservation Commission.

The board’s discussion followed presentations by Jim Chen of JCB Architect LLC, who described a proposed rear addition and a full‑width dormer at the third‑floor/attic level, and by owner Marjorie Fitzpatrick, who said she intends to live in the house as her retirement home. Several neighbors opposed the third floor; one adjacent homeowner said, "We're opposed to the Third Floor." A Ward 6 councilor asked the zoning board to delay further action until the Quincy Conservation Commission and the Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) have reviewed the project and issued any comments or a DEP file number.

The proposal calls for enlarging an existing nonconforming structure on a 3,200‑square‑foot lot. Chen told the board the rear of the house would be pushed back about 7.4 feet; he said the house’s total width would be about 20.7 feet, leaving roughly a 13‑foot side setback on one side. As originally presented, the plan included a full‑width dormer at the attic that neighbors said made the building appear significantly taller from Bayside Road. Chen and the owner said they would consider reducing or removing the dormer so the house would read as a 2½‑story structure rather than a three‑story structure.

Fitzpatrick addressed the board during public comment, saying she bought the property for a retirement home and that she was not planning to operate short‑term rentals. "I can assure you this will be nothing but my home," she said. She told the board her primary need was a first‑floor bedroom and bath for aging in place; she said the dormer was secondary: "If I don't get the dormer, I don't get the dormer. It's not the end of the world."

A Ward 6 councilor urged caution and requested that the zoning hearing be held pending review by the Conservation Commission and the DEP, noting the property abuts a dirt road on Bayside Road and Squanum Bay saltwater cove. The councilor said he was not aware of any pending Conservation Commission or DEP filings and asked that the board obtain a DEP file number and any orders of conditions before taking further action. The councilor said, in part, "I would ask the City of Quincy Zoning Board of Appeals to state all future further actions until the City of Quincy Conservation Commission, as well as the Commonwealth of Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection, review it."

Department of Public Works staff informed the board they had reviewed the submission and had no objections at the time of the hearing. Several neighbors, including adjacent owners at 58 Middlesex Street and other nearby properties, said the third floor would increase apparent mass and privacy impacts; one neighbor recounted a recent nearby project that added living space and later housed a large family, as a reason for concern.

Board members expressed the greatest objection to the proposed third‑floor dormer while indicating they were more comfortable with the proposed rear addition if the dormer were removed. The board asked the applicant to provide revised plans that remove or significantly reduce the dormer (one board member suggested a dormer narrowed to about 6 feet or elimination entirely), to stake out the proposed backyard addition on site so neighbors can see the footprint, and to provide a mock‑up of the back extension. The board also said it would seek clarification on whether the project requires Conservation Commission filings or DEP review.

The board continued the hearing for ZBA 25‑10 to the board’s next scheduled meeting and instructed the applicant to submit revised plans and materials in advance. No final vote on the variance was taken at the May 13 hearing.

The board and speakers noted several specifics mentioned at the hearing: the lot size (about 3,200 square feet), the planned rear extension (about 7.4 feet), an approximate house width presented as 20.7 feet leaving an approximate 13‑foot side setback, and a proposal that would result in three bedrooms and multiple bathrooms (the applicant described a first‑floor bedroom, two bedrooms on the second floor and multiple baths). The board did not adopt findings or decide on the variance at the meeting.