Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Zoning Variance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Zoning board allows townhouse project at 41 Moore Street after developer reduces height
Summary
The Quincy Zoning Board of Appeals approved a variance for a two‑unit townhouse at 41 Moore Street after the applicant revised plans to lower the building from three stories to two and to eliminate a garage, while requesting a floor‑area‑ratio exception.
The Quincy City Zoning Board of Appeals voted on April 8 to approve a variance allowing the demolition of an existing dwelling and construction of a two‑unit townhouse at 41 Moore Street after the applicant revised earlier plans to reduce the building height.
Jim China, architect for JCP T Architect LLC, told the board the team "went back to the drawing board and came back with a new drawing" that removed the ground‑level garage and converted the project to two stories. China said the proposal keeps the same overall footprint and adds surface parking at the sides of the property.
The applicant requested a single variance from the board for floor‑area‑ratio (FAR). The project team said the zoning district caps FAR at 40 percent (2,962 square feet) and that the proposed building would exceed that limit by roughly 760 square feet. The architect said the design retains setbacks on the left, right, rear and front but that "a portion of the proposed front deck is . . . approaching into the front yard setback" and could be eliminated to comply.
Board members and the project team discussed a utility pole in the curb‑cut area. China pointed to the site plan and noted the pole’s location; the applicant said the curb‑cut layout would be adjusted so the pole would not obstruct access.
The city received a letter from Quincy City Councilor Richard Ash (Ward 2) expressing that a revised, lower profile roof and added green space made the project fit better in the neighborhood; Ash wrote he shared the plans with abutters and that one respondent supported the revision.
After the applicant addressed board concerns and the team confirmed revised plans had been submitted, a board member moved to allow the application; the motion was seconded and the board voted in favor. The board’s motion allowed the variance to proceed as revised.
The decision record will incorporate correspondence received from the city and the Councilor’s letter, and applicants were reminded to submit final plan sets to meet filing requirements for the decision to be issued.
Votes at the hearing: The motion to allow the application was moved, seconded and carried by the board. The board named at the start of the meeting—Chairman Marty Akins, Vice Chairman Mr. Chin, Mr. Hemmel, Mr. Frankel, Mr. O’Brien and Ms. Barry—were present for the vote.
Why it matters: The board’s action permits a denser two‑unit project in a primarily residential neighborhood after the applicant revised a taller design to address massing and neighborhood concerns.
Next steps: The applicant must submit final plan sets to the building director and comply with any standard filing requirements noted in the decision.
