Applicant seeks subdivision, two-family townhouse and parking changes at 23 Claremont Ave; hearing continued

Ever8 Properties LLC asked the Quincy Zoning Board of Appeals on Dec. 10 to approve subdividing 23 Claremont Ave so the existing five-unit building would remain on one new parcel and a two-family townhouse would be built on the other.

The proposal would keep the current five-unit, primarily studio building and create a second lot with a two-story, two-family unit fronting on South Street. Attorney Edward Fleming, representing the applicant, said the full parcel is about 11,340 square feet and that the smaller of the two proposed lots would be about 4,727 square feet. He said the plan calls for a single, shared curb cut on Claremont to serve both properties and for seven new parking spaces to serve the five-unit building plus two garage spaces (one per new unit) for the new two-family house.

"Right now it consists of existing five unit building all single studio style units," Fleming said. "The proposal that's before you tonight is actually to maintain the existing five family building ... and also construct a new two family house that will front on South Street." He added the new parking and stormwater measures would "contain them on-site and infiltrate on-site." Civil engineer Chi of Hardyman Design Group said the design includes an underground treatment/infiltration system and that it "is gonna meet all the state and city stormwater regulations."

Why it matters: The site now functions largely as a paved parking lot with limited drainage. The applicant says the subdivision and two-family home will better match neighborhood lot patterns while improving on-site parking and drainage. Neighbors and some board members pressed the applicant for more detail on parking use, exterior lighting, landscaping, snow storage and the interior layout of the proposed townhouses.

Details and concerns: Architect Mark Sullivan described the two-family townhouse as a mirrored, three-bedroom unit on each side with garage parking underneath, roughly "just under 2,000 square feet per unit." Board members and neighbors questioned garage width (the garages were shown about 20 feet wide), the presence of a full bathroom adjacent to a proposed ground-floor office, and whether the office could be downsized or the bathroom reduced to a half bath to reduce the potential for the room to be used as a bedroom. Member Barry said the downstairs space looked like a bedroom and asked why it included a full bath; the design team said the space was intended for an office and agreed to consider making the bathroom a half bath and shrinking the office to create more garage storage.

Neighbors raised parking and circulation issues. Longtime resident John Mayo said that although the back lot has capacity, tenants typically park on the street, and that adding units will increase competition for on-street parking during peak times and community events. Councilor Richard Ash, who said he had attended a neighborhood meeting earlier in September, called the design "beautiful" but suggested the building might be slightly too large for the block and urged continued conversation with neighbors.

The applicant introduced 33 letters of neighborhood support into the record; the clerk said the names and addresses would be filed. Department of Public Works (DPW) submitted comments asking for utility details, curb-stop valves and a sewer cleanout, and noted proposed contours that could collect water at the duplex front if not adjusted.

Board action and next steps: The board did not take a final vote and asked the applicant to revise plans to address parking, garage storage, the ground-floor bathroom/office, setbacks and landscaping. The hearing was continued; the board scheduled the matter for further review (the board indicated a January hearing date to be posted on the record). The applicant agreed to return with revised drawings that shrink the ground-floor office, reconsider the bathroom, refine the shared-driveway and drainage details, and present a professional landscape plan.

What remains unresolved: The board requested more precise site geometry, clarified parking counts and use, finalized stormwater details, and a clearer plan for snow storage and lighting that limits light spill to adjacent properties.