Zoning board rejects variance for three‑story home on Francis Street amid parking, character concerns

Thomas Lynch, attorney for Six Francis LLC, told the Zoning Board of Appeals on May 12 that his client seeks to rebuild the house at 6 Francis Street using the previous structure's 9.6‑foot front setback rather than the 20 feet required in the R75 zone. Lynch said the revised design was reduced by about 5 feet from an earlier submittal and that the new house would "keep a uniform front yard setback along Francis Street" consistent with neighboring properties.

The board heard detailed plans from architect John Wicko, who described a three‑story, FEMA‑compliant elevated house with parking under the structure. Wicko said the living areas would total roughly 3,600–4,000 square feet across three levels and that the porch was reduced by about five feet from the earlier plan.

Neighbors who live directly on Francis Street urged the board to deny the setback variance. "My main concern is the parking," said David Low, who lives at 3 Francis Street across from the site. Low said the neighborhood has "no parking on Francis Street" and warned that a large, six‑bedroom house with only four off‑street spaces could create summer congestion. Tom Flanders, another nearby resident, said he saw "no hardship" that would justify the front‑yard variance and argued the proposal represents a self‑created hardship.

Lynch replied that the prior cottage sat at the 9.6‑foot line and that the owner is entitled to rebuild with that setback; he also pointed to Coastal Area Management (CAM) infrastructure and underground drainage chambers that constrain moving the house farther back. He added that the new design provides four off‑street parking spaces, "in excess of what the city regulations require."

After questions from the board about porch projections, finished versus open porch area, and whether the project reduced other nonconformities, the board voted on a motion to approve the front‑yard setback to 9.6 feet and to allow expansion of the nonconforming structure. The motion failed on a 1–4 vote: Mr. Wolf voted in favor; Mr. Soda, Mr. Inig, Miss Hirs and Chairwoman Fonte voted against it. Members opposing the motion cited the visual impact of a three‑story building located so close to the road and unresolved neighborhood parking concerns.

With the motion defeated, the applicant will need to decide whether to revise the proposal or pursue other procedural options available under state law. The board closed the public hearing before the vote and recommended any future plan address neighborhood parking and the building's proximity to the street.

The Zoning Board heard four additional items that evening, approving the other four variance requests (61 Milford Point Road; 164 Rogers Avenue; 30 Gerard Street; 300 Subway) by unanimous votes.