Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Zoning Variance Retaining Wall topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board approves variance for retaining wall at 131 Stream Valley Boulevard
Summary
The Franklin City Board of Zoning Appeals approved a variance allowing a retaining wall to sit at the rear property line for 131 Stream Valley Boulevard after hearing that the wall was built without a permit and neighbors raised no objection.
Board member Scales and four other members of the Franklin City Board of Zoning Appeals voted unanimously on June 5 to approve a variance allowing a retaining wall to be located a minimum of 0 inches from the rear property line at 131 Stream Valley Boulevard.
Staff had recommended denial, telling the board the wall was installed without the required permit and that the strict application of the city’s zoning ordinance would not create an exceptional hardship because the noncompliance was self‑imposed. Staff also noted the zoning ordinance requires retaining walls to be located at least 6 feet from a property line.
Homeowner Peter Reginali and his wife, Brooke Reginali, told the board they moved to the house about four years ago and hired a contractor they believed to be reputable to construct the wall. “We didn't know that we were out of compliance in any way until we were met with a pool contractor, and they submitted our plot plans,” Peter Reginali said. He added the original contractor, Franklin Stone, went out of business, and the homeowners learned of the permit issue only when applying for a pool permit.
Reginali said the retaining wall terraces a hill behind the house and that he and his neighbors—plus the property owner behind them, Chadwell Properties—had indicated they had no objection as long as the wall did not cross the property line. The wall reaches about 6 feet at its tallest point, staff said. The Reginalis also submitted letters from neighbors in support and photos that were included in the application packet.
Board members discussed whether the situation was truly self‑created and whether topography and the lot shape justified relief. Several members said the wall affects the homeowners’ intended use of the backyard and that the site’s topography distinguishes it from flat, regularly shaped lots. Board member Scales moved to approve the variance, seconded by Board member Flushauer. The roll call vote was Beams: approve; Scales: approve; Langley: approve; Smith: approve; Flushauer: yes.
The board’s approval reverses the staff recommendation and allows the existing retaining wall to remain at the rear property line with the effect that the homeowners can proceed with planned backyard improvements, including their proposed pool. The board did not direct additional remedial actions or conditions in the motion recorded on the public record.
