105 Sea St. has been the location of the Imperial Terrace Chinese restaurant for half a century. Like many restaurants in recent years, it recently closed its doors for good. The property was sold to a developer because of course it was. It’s hard to blame property owners. Selling their property to a real estate developer during a hot real estate market is a no-brainer financially. Still, it’s hard for the residents to see more and more amenities leave us. This time the developer in question is one of the current administration’s key people, Quincy solicitor, James Timmins. It is the wish of this developer to raze the Imperial Terrace building, and build a 24 unit condominium complex. In order for this to happen, they need the Zoning board to grant several variances. Which is how this came to my attention, earlier this week. Since then, I have been on the phone with residents trying to fill in some of the gaps. Here is my current best attempt at understanding this saga.

In January of 2021, an LLC called “JVC Sea Street”, with a mailing address of 55 Willard St. filed corporation establishment players with the MA Secretary of State office. The officers of this LLC are James Timmins and Christopher Timmins. The stated purpose of this company is:

“THIS COMPANY IS FORMED TO OWN, MANAGE, BUY, SELL, LEASE, MORTGAGE, FINANCE, LICENSE, AND/OR DEVELOP REAL ESTATE AND/OR ENGAGE IN ACTIVITIES OTHERWISE LAWFUL FOR WHICH LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANIES ARE ORGANIZED IN THIS COMMONWEALTH.” The signatory on the certificate of organization is James Timmins.

Business Enity Summary JVC SEA STREET — Business Entity Summary, MA Sec of State Website.

Mr. Timmins was named city solicitor by Mayor Koch at the beginning of his administration and he had served for 12 years before that under Mayor Sheets. All told, it appears Mr. Timmins has served about a quarter century in the Quincy solicitor’s office. In this capacity, he has advised countless mayoral appointees and has wielded tremendous power.

As city solicitor, he also makes unilateral decisions on the operation of government in unexpected places. In 2019, towards the end of the election, I complained to the City Clerk that my opponent was using uniformed police officers in campaign material, it was Mr. Timmins who decided that “although I certainly understand his concern, there is no violation here.” The state ethics committee ended up investigating, but the findings are kept private. Mr. Timmins who also is on the board of QATV, was the one who ruled that if I were to create QATV content that I could not use QATV footage of public meetings and interviews with elected officials. Whether or not this was in violation of the fair use doctrine outlined in Section 107 of US Copyright Act was unilaterally decided by Mr. Timmins. There was no discussion, no consideration. A flat “no”. It seems likely that the decision was probably influenced by Mr. Timmins’ anticipation of criticism in any content I would generate. I bring this up to describe the kind of power he wields in this city. Now while these two examples are minor, if Mr. Timmins has directly influenced matters affecting me, I must assume his control and command influences decisions at all levels of Quincy’s government from potholes to human resources…and zoning.

I bring this up because I have serious concerns about Mr. Timmins’ LLC is trying to develop 105 Sea St. And their plans are big.

In August 2021, the trustees of 105 Sea St. transferred ownership of the property to JVC Sea Street for $1,350,000. Within a few weeks JVC had filed an application with the Zoning Board of

Deed transfer Norfolk registry — From Norfolk Registry of Deeds website.

Appeals (ZBA). The ZBA is a quasi-judicial board appointed by the mayor to grant or deny exceptions to Quincy’s zoning laws on a case by case basis. So they closed on the deal for 105 Sea St. and within a few weeks were asking for variances. On September 8th they started uploading plans to Quincy’s Inspectional Services web portal and the application was completed on September 16. The plans were obviously designed before the property was officially purchased, but it’s not clear how long. According to the ZBA application, the applicant first approached the ward councilor in March, 2021.

screenshot of zba application showing the contact date with ward councilor — Christopher Timmins met with Councilor McCarthy in March of 2021, 5 months before the land purchase

The ZBA application asks for seven variances:

Required Zoning Relief The proposed development as a multi-unit residence is permitted by right under the zoning code. The project requires only dimensional relief, under Section 4.0, as set out in the Table of Dimensional Regulations in Section 4.1:

 **Category**                **Required**    **Provided****  
  Minimum Lot Area           4,500 s.f.      1,150 s.f.  
  Max Floor Area Ratio       0.5             1.3
  Max stories                3               4
  Green Space per dwlg       1,000           326 s.f.
  Front Yard setback         25              17
  Side Yard setback          20              7 (left)
  Off-street parking         48              42

The provided minimum lot area is a quarter of what our zoning ordinances require. The floor area ratio is more than twice what the ordinance allows. The green space per dwelling is about a third of what it needs to be. The setback requests are substantial and the parking spots are fewer than required. Recently Quincy increased the parking needed per unit. This just happened in the last few years, it’s not an outdated ordinance that no longer applies. And of course, they also want one more story than allowed.

architecture rendering of 105 sea proposal — Architectural rendering

Why are people mad? Let us count the ways.

1. “It’s too big!”

As detailed above, this project is large in almost every way. Many residents have expressed the opinion that it’s too high, it’s too close to the street, and there are too many units compared to the parking available. They worry that most units will have two cars and there will not be enough visitor or temporary parking. JVC Sea Street counters the parking argument with the opinion that since the property is right on Sea St. (3A) there is no on-street parking and therefore the residents will not need to worry about condo residents parking in front of their homes. I think this argument is specious. People will walk a fair distance if needed to have a car available to them. Just across the street is a community with plenty of side streets.

2. Traffic

After substantial tax dollars being spent improving traffic at the intersection of Quincy Shore Drive and Sea St. it would be a shame to undo a lot of that work by adding an ill-conceived housing development. Without a doubt, residents will turn left out of the development to head toward Quincy Center. Cars will stop short to turn in, residents will be running across the street to catch the inbound bus…in short, it will be a mess.

3. The Disregard of Residents’ Opinions.
Aside from the abutters who received a letter inviting them to a community meeting at the Fox and Hound on October 20, most of us learned of this project on October 25th, when the Merrymount Association’s Facebook Page put the ZBA meeting info on their Facebook page. With one day’s notice many of us were able to fill each other in on the project. Some of us went online to pull the files from the QuincyMa.gov website and others reported what they heard at the October 20 meeting. But there is a twist to the story, the October 26th ZBA meeting was not the first time this project was on the ZBA docket. It was originally on the agenda for the October 12th meeting. It was postponed/continued so that the ward councilor could get a community meeting done.
So, Mr. Timmins, a man who was assistant city solicitor for 12 years and lead city solicitor for 13 years tried to have this bought before the ZBA without a community meeting. And Councilor McCarthy, who knew about this project in March, did nothing to let the Ward know about this project—aside from abutters and only after it was already on the docket for October 12.
Why does Quincy have a plethora of “secret projects?” This project is not the only project that was poorly publicized and this entire project may have just sailed through if not for a Facebook post.

4. We still have a planning board right?
How did this project bypass planning board? I have reviewed all the planning board agendas of 2021 and this project does not appear on any of them. Quincy is just about completely “built out”, meaning there is very little buildable land left. Here we have a sizeable parcel being turned over from commercial to residential and the planning board does not need to at least review the plans? The mission of the planning boad on Quincy’s website is vague, but when you look at the agendas of prior meetings, this project falls squarely in the description of the types of projects they review. When you consider the impact on traffic, the proximity to a salt marsh, and the complete remake of what has been in this location for 50 years, it seems suspicious that Quincy’s planning board is sitting this out.

5. The games we play with our quasi judicial boards are gross. In August, the Ward had a similar issue with a planned project on Jewett St. Parliamentary Rope-A-Dope kicked in and when there was a meaty opposition ready to speak against that project, it was pulled from the docket and continued till after the election. Similarly, this project was pulled just as the October 26 ZBA meeting began. The lawyer for the applicant actually said “We are ready to go, but we are ok continuing out of respect of the councilor.” It seems odd to me that now we pull items just because the Ward Councilor wants more time. Is it just that he would prefer ticking off his constituents after the election?

What would I do if I were the ward councilor?
I would push developers to build —with few exceptions— within the zoning laws we have. Zoning variances are there for hardships:

An elevator being put in so an elderly relative can still get to their bedroom is an example of a good variance to grant.
- Developers want to build an oversized condo complex to turn a maximum profit is NOT a good use of a zoning relief.
A family of five is starting to feel claustrophobic in their house. They need a fourth bedroom and a second bathroom. It is unaffordable to build in total compliance, so a variance is granted which allows this family to do what they need to do to live comfortably and stay in the neighborhood.
A resident wants to build a small waiting room where there porch was so they can have their piano students’ parents wait nearby.
- A resident wants an extra off-street parking spot and wants to pave their front yard to make further driveway space. While we all would like extra parking, this is NOT a good example of a hardship.

So you see, I’m not against giving people a break, but I am afraid that the political clique has been watching their benefactors cash in the past ten years. It was only a matter of time before the actual administration was going to find ways to share in the wealth themselves. The only way to check against that is to follow and vote for candidates who are trying to help.

Lastly, I do believe it is a big deal that the city solicitor is trying to make bank on a project like this. I’m not saying he can’t develop real estate, but he can go to Milton, Braintree, Weymouth, etc. The administration has become too comfortable with norms breaking down. This happens when people have been around too long. You don’t realize that people say yes to you a lot, people get scared to speak up. You can start this Tuesday, and then again when the zoning meeting comes up.

NOVEMBER 23, mark your calendars!

Developers want to build an oversized condo complex to turn a maximum profit is NOT a good use of a zoning relief.

A resident wants an extra off-street parking spot and wants to pave their front yard to make further driveway space. While we all would like extra parking, this is NOT a good example of a hardship.