The Concord Zoning Board of Appeals on Dec. 12 denied an application to site a detached additional dwelling unit (ADU) at 262 Virginia Road, reaffirming the board’s earlier decision after a court remand and lengthy public comment.

Michael Gresti presented for the applicant, summarizing work done since the prior hearings and arguing multiple site constraints—wetland buffer, a rocky outcrop, and the condition of a shared driveway—make locating the ADU in the front portion of the lot difficult and justify relief from the town’s preferred 150-foot siting. Gresti noted the decision followed instructions in a remand and cited recent state ADU legislation, saying the law "encourages towns to be more lenient" on ADU siting.

Neighbors and immediate abutters opposed the requested location and size. Mark Murphy, who said he lives across the street, told the board the plan "isn't modest" and argued the proposed house would "present a wall" to his view and not fit the neighborhood. Multiple abutters described repeated basement flooding and groundwater issues on the neighborhood's shared driveway; several cited the risk that a new septic/ leach-field or excavation would worsen flooding and groundwater intrusion. One abutter said the shared drive—created by special permit in 1986—should not be used to justify a second curb cut or additional traffic.

Board members focused the remand question on whether the town's frontage requirement unreasonably prevents any ADU on this lot. Members said they see alternative locations on the property (including options that avoid deep excavation or the need for additional curb cuts), and noted that approved ADUs in town commonly use slab foundations rather than basements to avoid difficult excavation. Board members also raised precedence and town-character concerns tied to frontage rules.

After deliberation the board moved to deny the application on the remand. Town counsel (Kristen Kagales) advised the board that issuing a second written decision on remand with expanded rationale was appropriate; the board said that a variance—rather than a special-permit route—would be the proper path if the applicant wants the requested placement.

"The town has zoning, and we are not saying you can't build an ADU," the chair said, explaining the denial was limited to the requested location on the lot and not to ADUs generally. The board recorded aye votes to deny the remanded application.