By MARK SARDELLA
WAKEFIELD — A proposal to build an accessory dwelling unit at 148 Parker Rd. under the the new state and local ADU guidelines was met with pushback from neighbors and abutters at last week’s meeting of the Zoning Board of Appeals.
Marcos Arado owns the rebuilt colonial style home at the corner of Parker Road and Griffen Drive.
Neighbors contend that not only is the proposed addition too big, but that the existing house currently functions as a two-family, with a separate unit in the basement area already serving as an ADU.
Arado was represented at the hearing by attorney Brian McGrail. Part of the large addition that Arado would like to put on the house would be an ADU and part of it would be incorporated into the existing house, McGrail explained.
McGrail reminded the board that under the new law, ADUs are allowed by right. If a proposal does not meet local dimensional requirements, the owner can apply for a Special Permit from the ZBA. In this case, he said, the addition of the proposed ADU would create a rear setback of 17.4 feet, falling short of the required 25-foot rear setback.
McGrail showed plans and drawings showing the proposed addition/ADU. The addition would place the ADU on top of a new three-car garage. McGrail noted that the size of the ADU would be 820 square feet (under the 900 allowed by right) and that the total lot coverage including the proposed addition would not exceed the 30 percent limit.
McGrail said that the only relief needed was for the rear setback and that such relief was reasonable and should be granted by Special Permit from the ZBA.
But board members argued that the project could be easily redesigned to meet the rear setback requirement and avoid the need for any relief from the board.
ZBA Chairman Thomas Lucey asked about the long breezeway between the existing home and the proposed addition. Shortening it by eight feet would bring the addition far enough from the rear lot line to meet the setback requirement, he said.
Board member Chip Tarbell agreed. He said that the owner could also eliminate a garage bay from the proposed addition in order to meet the setback.
“There are lots of ways to do this and not need a Special Permit,” he said. Tarbell added that he did not think the board should be granting Special Permits to modify setbacks for ADUs.
ZBA member David Hatfield agreed that the the plan could be modified and done by right. He noted that at the time that the new ADU law went into effect, the board was adamant that local ADUs would have to meet the dimensional requirements.
Tarbell added that the proposed large addition seemed out of place in the neighborhood.
Other board members agreed.
When the hearing was opened to the public, abutter Barbara Orlowitz of Putnam Avenue noted that the the home already functions as a two-family dwelling with a separate, self-contained unit in the basement. The new proposed ADU/addition would in effect create a multifamily dwelling, she said.
But Chairman Lucey pointed out that the way that the home currently functions is not under the control of the ZBA. Such concerns should be brought to the attention of the Building Inspector, who is the zoning enforcement officer, he said.
Richard Galatas of Putnam Avenue pointed out that the neighborhood consists almost entirely of modest Cape and ranch-style homes. The proposal would create a house that is way to big for the neighborhood, he insisted. He further noted that law prohibits two ADUs on a property, reiterating the earlier claim that there are already two families living there.
Paul Rybycki of Parker Road echoed that claim and called the proposal “extreme” and “a gigantic overreach.” He said that the project should be redesigned.
Lucey noted that the board’s sentiment was clear that they would not approve the project as proposed. He asked McGrail how he would like to proceed.
McGrail said that the “strong accusations” leveled against his client were “not entirely accurate.” He asked to have the hearing continued to the board’s Oct. 15 meeting, at which point his client would either present a reconfigured plan or withdraw the Special Permit application.
Lucy reiterated to the neighbors that any concerns about current zoning violations should be brought to the Building Inspector.
The ZBA continued the hearing to its Oct. 15 meeting.