Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Zoning topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board approves subdivision application for 56 Meadowbrook Rd.; applicant and counsel described revised plans
Summary
The Quincy Zoning Board granted ZBA 25‑9 to subdivide a 9,600‑square‑foot lot at 56 Meadowbrook Road and approved plans advanced by petitioner Stephen Cobble; the record includes differing descriptions of the proposed dwelling.
The Quincy City Zoning Board on April 22 voted to grant ZBA 25‑9, allowing the subdivision of an existing roughly 9,600‑square‑foot lot at 56 Meadowbrook Road and approving relief sought for the proposed dwelling on the new lot.
Edward Fleming, attorney, said he represented petitioner Stephen Cobble and described the current filing as a revised plan that would create a smaller dwelling on a secondary parcel adjacent to the existing family home. Fleming said the original submission, heard March 25, had proposed a duplex; the revised plans “provide for a much smaller single‑family dwelling,” with setbacks now shown to comply with zoning. Glenn Hoffman, the project architect, was present to answer detailed questions about the plans.
The applicant requested a flood‑plain special permit and variances to allow subdivision, frontage and lot‑size relief. Fleming said the resulting lots would be roughly comparable to other lots in the neighborhood; the attorney described the two new parcels as about 4,600 square feet each. The proposed house would be about three stories tall, Fleming said, with garage parking on the first level and two living levels above; the design includes dormers to reduce apparent massing. Materials described for the exterior included cementitious siding and cementitious shingles.
No public speakers registered in favor or opposition during the hearing. The board had no substantive questions after the presentation. The formal motion on the record referenced subdividing the parcel and constructing a duplex on the vacant lot; the board moved, seconded and approved the application by voice vote. The record therefore contains two related statements: the attorney’s representation that plans were revised toward a smaller single‑family dwelling and the motion language that references a duplex. The board approved the relief as presented on the record under ZBA 25‑9.
The vote clears the zoning relief the petitioner requested; the record does not specify a construction start date, building permit status, or additional conditions beyond those shown on the submitted plans.
