Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Floodplain Rebuild topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board continues hearing on 656 C Street floodplain rebuild to May 27 after neighbor design concerns
Summary
The hearing on a proposed floodplain‑compliant three‑story rebuild with ground‑level garages at 656 C Street was continued to May 27 after neighbors criticized the design and the board requested revised plans with more architectural detail and feasible garage dimensions.
The Quincy Zoning Board of Appeals continued the application for 656 C Street on April 8 to the board’s May 27 meeting after residents and board members raised design and parking concerns.
Attorney or representative Manuel Piva presented the owner’s proposal to demolish the existing house and rebuild a three‑story, floodplain‑compliant dwelling on the same footprint with a four‑stall garage at ground level. Piva said the existing lot is preexisting nonconforming (3,642 square feet) and entirely within the flood zone. He explained the rebuilt house would be elevated on piles (flood vents) and that utilities would be placed on the raised first floor to meet floodproofing requirements.
Neighbors criticized the design as a large flat box with little architectural character and questioned garage practicality. One neighbor asked how four cars would be maneuvered and several speakers urged the applicant to add windows, break up the massing, and provide more appealing façade elements. Board members echoed the design concerns and noted that the proposed garage door widths (16 feet each) are tight for credible four‑car parking; a board member recommended increasing garage door widths to 18–20 feet if the applicant intends to present the garages as functional four‑car capacity.
Board members and neighbors suggested the applicant return with revised elevations and a design that adds architectural relief. The board set a continuation date to the May 27 meeting and required that new plan sets be submitted at least one week prior, per the usual filing rules.
Why it matters: The project affects a corner lot in the floodplain and proposes significant new massing and parking; neighbors and the board requested more context‑sensitive design before the board can act.
Next steps: Applicant to submit revised designs with reduced perceived massing, improved façade articulation, and feasible garage dimensions in time for the May 27 hearing; the case remains continued.
