Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Zoning topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Wakefield Board of Appeals grants variance for 6th Avenue garage, requires return if blasting needed
Summary
The Wakefield Board of Appeals unanimously approved a variance allowing a one‑car detached garage at 6th Avenue on May 27, 2026, concluding town departments raised no objections and imposing a condition that the applicant must return to the board if any blasting is required.
The Wakefield Board of Appeals voted unanimously on May 27 to grant a variance allowing a one‑story, one‑car detached garage to be built beside a house at a 6th Avenue property, with a condition that the applicant must return to the board for permission if any blasting is required.
Attorney Brian McGrael, speaking for the property owner Robert Castle, told the board the lot’s irregular shape and topography — including a paper street and steep rear grade — make locating the garage in the rear yard impracticable. He said the proposed structure is modest and placed to avoid direct impacts to neighbors: “he has a healthy 13 foot setback here,” McGrael said, describing distance from the sideline.
McGrael also said town departments had weighed in: the Wakefield Fire Department (Tom Purcell) supplied a May 13 letter with no objections, DPW engineering provided a May 26 memorandum raising no applicable comments, and the conservation department indicated no filing was required.
During public comment Patricia Loto of 16 Cherry, Stoneham, said nearby blasting on other projects over the past decade has damaged windows and foundations in the neighborhood: “My windows have lost the seals. My foundation has cracks in it,” she said. The applicant responded that blasting was not anticipated for a 10‑by‑19 garage and described likely methods as digging and pouring concrete; the applicant agreed to return to the board if blasting became necessary.
Board members moved to grant the variance under the Wakefield zoning provisions (article six/table two), adopting the applicant’s submitted site and architectural plans and citing unique circumstances related to lot shape and topography. The motion included the explicit condition that the applicant must come back to the board to discuss details if any blasting is required. The board approved the motion by voice vote; the decision was unanimous.
The variance was granted based on the plans by Paul Fino (site plan, March 27, 2026) and architectural submissions by John Castaltto (April 2, 2026). The applicant must return to the Board of Appeals for review and approval before undertaking any blasting operations.
The board then moved to its next agenda items.
