Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Zoning Floodplain topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Zoning board approves floodplain-compliant addition at 133 Darrow Street
Summary
The Quincy City Zoning Board granted a special permit and floodplain finding to remove a rear deck and build a one-story flood-compliant addition at 133 Darrow Street; board members discussed a longstanding informal driveway use and an outstanding lien on an adjacent sliver parcel.
Quincy City Zoning Board on April 22 voted to grant a special permit and floodplain finding to remove the existing rear deck at 133 Darrow Street and construct a one-story flood‑compliant addition in its place.
The board moved and passed the petition for CBA 25-7 filed on behalf of owner Aaron Gavin. The board record shows members voted in favor, and the motion carried without recorded opposition.
The petition was presented as a straightforward deck removal and replacement with a flood‑compliant addition. During discussion board members and staff confirmed the work affects the rear of the house and does not alter the existing front driveway. The board noted the occupants have parked in the adjacent driveway area for about 16 years; one member said, “They've been parking there 16 years,” while staff noted there is an outstanding roughly $100,000 lien on a narrow adjoining parcel and that, if taxes remain unpaid, the city could ultimately take the property. Chair Marty Akins added he recommended approval after those clarifications.
No members of the public spoke against the proposal. After deliberation the board formally moved to accept the petition and voted to grant the requested relief.
The decision allows the owner to proceed with the one‑story flood‑compliant addition as described in the application; the board did not attach additional conditions in the hearing record. The discussion included fact‑finding about the driveway and the lien; the board did not change the scope of the requested work and noted that future disputes over the narrow adjoining parcel would be a separate matter.
