Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Marina Bay Boat Repair topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Large Marina Bay boat-repair warehouse proposal draws strong resident opposition; hearing continued to March 11
Summary
A proposed 56,000-square-foot boat-repair warehouse at Marina Bay prompted extensive resident opposition over height, views, parking easements and environmental risks. The Planning Board continued the case to March 11 for further review and additional materials.
The Quincy Planning Board heard a proposal for a new boat-repair and storage building at Marina Bay that residents said would be out of scale with the neighborhood and threaten views and livability.
Unidentified applicant representatives described the project as a water-dependent repair facility and said the FEMA-required land-use label ‘ship building and ship repair’ does not mean they will construct ships. The presenter told the board the enclosed building should reduce outdoor noise and debris, improve drainage and speed springtime operations; the team said it has not yet received city engineering comments and will present a landscape plan at the next meeting.
Residents filled the public-comment period with objections. Thomas Concannon, who identified his address as 10 Seaport Drive, said, “It’s going to be 50 feet tall,” and warned the structure would block views from the Atlantic condominiums. Donato Ferrooli of 332 Victory Road asked the board to protect an existing recorded parking easement benefiting Lot 47, saying the application’s proposed reconfiguration appears to interfere with those rights and requesting explicit conditions preserving those easement interests.
Other neighbors described the building as a “ginormous wall” and “a behemoth of an eyesore.” James Croster, a Chapman's Reach resident, summarized the dimensions residents were discussing: “310 feet long facing Victory Road…200 feet by 50 feet high…roughly 56,000 square feet,” and urged the board to consider the building’s scale, potential traffic effects and long-term impacts on property values. Several residents raised health and safety concerns: Gail Jacoby read a list of hazards she found in online searches — chemical fumes, paint solvents, asbestos or fiberglass, noise and possible water contamination — and Stanley Kroska questioned how hundreds of boats and stored fuel would be managed safely indoors.
A letter read into the record from Maria Mulligan cited City of Quincy tree-ordinance requirements (chapter 3.11.4.c) and asked the applicant to provide a landscape plan complying with tree-shading rules, verification of how the building will meet energy-code requirements, and proof the roof structure is engineered to accept future solar panels in line with IECC 2021 guidance.
Ward 6 City Councilor Deborah Riley said she walked the area and stood with neighbors, adding that the current submission appears larger and worse than an earlier proposal the community had opposed. Several speakers asked for clearer renderings showing how the building would look from the Atlantic Building and asked why alternate sites had not been considered.
After public comment, planning staff recommended continuation to allow the applicant time to respond to engineering comments, provide a landscape plan and address easement and code concerns. The board moved and seconded a motion to continue the hearing to the March 11 Planning Board meeting; members voted by voice, recorded as “Aye,” and the matter was continued.
The board requested additional materials and city-engineering review before the next hearing; no final approvals were granted at the session.
