Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Housing Lodging topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Quincy ZBA denies request to authorize lodging/sober house at 44 Greenleaf
Summary
The Quincy Zoning Board of Appeals voted to deny a request to allow operation of a lodging/sober house at 44 Greenleaf, citing zoning limits for Residence B and concerns about easement and prior unpermitted work; neighbors and the board raised safety and siting objections.
The Quincy Zoning Board of Appeals on Oct. 7 denied an application seeking a finding to allow operation of a lodging or sober‑house at 44 Greenleaf.
The application, filed as ZBA2560 by Andrew J. Tine, Esquire, asked the board to treat the property’s occupancy as equivalent to a single‑family use or, alternatively, to grant a reasonable accommodation that would permit lodging operation in the existing Residence B zoning. Keith Shevick, a company representative, told the board the owner, FBCF LLC, has operated a sober‑house at the address since March and said the house has 10 beds above grade and would offer supportive, recovery‑oriented services.
Several neighbors and expert commenters urged denial. Architect and planner Jeffrey Zinda said the site includes a 15‑foot utility easement and cited Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 187, §5, arguing a permanent structure in the easement is prohibited and utilities would have to sign off. He asked the board to reject the request and said the pond/related improvements on the lot appear to have been permitted improperly.
Board members also cited local zoning limits. Chair Marty Akins said the board had heard the applicant’s position but noted the property is in Residence B, where the board said such lodging uses are not permitted without rezoning. “Your application, we heard what you have to say, but it’s not usable in Zone B,” the chair stated during deliberations.
After public comment and discussion about past certificates of occupancy and enforcement history, a board member made a motion to deny. The board voted by voice; the clerk recorded successive “Aye” responses and the motion carried. The board did not adopt a conditional approval; members instructed staff to follow up on outstanding permit and enforcement questions.
The denial leaves open legal avenues for the applicant; the board noted the applicant could challenge the decision through appeals processes. The applicant and representatives were on hand during the vote and the board said it would coordinate any required enforcement steps with inspectional staff.
