Quincy zoning board continues 41 Moore Street townhouse proposal after neighbors cite size, parking and massing concerns

The Quincy Zoning Board continued a hearing on a proposal to demolish a single-family home at 41 Moore Street and replace it with a three-story, two-unit townhouse after neighbors and several board members said the structure would overwhelm the block.

The applicant is seeking relief from the zoning rules for maximum floor-area ratio and for front-yard paving to provide access to below-grade garages, according to the applicant's presentation and board discussion. Architect Jim Chen said the project would provide two 2,000-square-foot units with two garage spaces per unit and two additional exterior spaces, and would be 31 feet tall — under the 35-foot limit for the Residence B district.

Why it matters: The proposal would change the footprint and scale of a block composed largely of smaller single-family homes; neighbors said the size and massing could alter the neighborhood's character and increase on-street parking pressure. The board asked the applicant for revisions and continued the matter to allow time for new plans and neighbor review.

Jim Chen, the presenting architect, said the project would replace a single-family dwelling on a 7,045-square-foot lot with side-by-side townhouse units. He told the board the design team revised the driveway and parking arrangement after neighborhood meetings and that the proposal complies with most zoning requirements except for the maximum floor‑area ratio. He said the proposed FAR is 0.55 versus the 0.4 allowed in the Residence B zone and that the building height would be 31 feet.

Neighbors who spoke at the hearing urged changes or opposed the project. Karen Fickett, who said she lives at 45 Moore Street next door to the proposed building, said, "So it's no. I'm dead set against it." Mario Coronet of 11 Silver Street said the project would extend behind his backyard and increase parked cars around his house. Another neighbor, identified only as Bill, said the proposed building is "too big for that area" and "overwhelming." Councilor Bridget Ash submitted a written comment asking the board to read her email into the record; Ash said she hosted a community meeting and reported that residents'chief concerns were height, mass, parking and green space, and that the applicant had reworked plans to add green space in front.

Board members raised design and scale issues during discussion. Several members said the Mansard-style massing and the number of upper-floor windows made the building look larger than its measured height. Members suggested several changes the applicant could consider to reduce perceived bulk: dropping one floor to a two‑story design, reducing the number of windows on the front elevation, pushing the building back on the lot, and adding pavers and additional parking on the sides to reduce on‑street impacts.

The board received a technical review letter from a civil engineer that asked for more information on impervious area, existing utilities and proposed drainage and grading. The letter requested as-built plans and a digital file on completion.

Action: A motion was made to continue the matter to April 8 to allow the applicant time to revise plans and provide updated drawings for the board and neighbors. The board carried the motion.

Next steps: The applicant was asked to supply revised drawings to the board and the public at least one week before the continued hearing so neighbors and staff can review the changes.

Ending: The hearing was continued; no vote on the underlying variances was taken at this meeting.