Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Retaining Walls Parking topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Somersworth HDC tables 67 Elm Street parking lot and retaining-wall proposal after materials and engineering concerns
Summary
An application to build a parking lot and an up-to-18-foot retaining wall at 67 Elm Street (HDC case 10-2025) was tabled. Commissioners requested elevation drawings, material samples, engineering documentation and clarifications about granite reuse; the applicant agreed to return May 28.
The Somersworth Historic District Commission on April 23 tabled an application from 67 Elm Street, Somersworth LLC to remove remaining foundation elements and construct a parking lot and a retaining wall at 67 Elm Street (HDC case 10-2025). The retaining wall as proposed could reach a maximum height of about 18 feet on the site’s south and west edges.
Staff noted retaining walls over 6 feet require geotechnical documentation under the 2021 International Building Code and that the proposed parking and use will also require Planning Board review. Applicant representatives Robert Prevetti and Ben Stebbins described the existing site as a mix of rubble, poured concrete and failing materials; they proposed a segmental concrete/block retaining wall with a stamped finish intended to be consistent with masonry on nearby 22 Green Street.
Engineers from Horizons Engineering (Zachary Bacon, who identified himself as an engineer but stated he has not yet obtained a professional-engineer license) told the commission that a retaining wall of the size proposed will require an engineered solution; the firm recommended a segmental block wall for constructability and stability, noting a large, monolithic rubble-faced natural-stone solution would be difficult to build to modern structural standards without extensive treatment. Commissioners raised the commission’s standards of review, which state that retaining walls and similar landscape features should be constructed of natural stone. Several members asked whether any granite salvaged from prior demolition on nearby sites could be reused; staff clarified the earlier demolition permit did not require leaving granite on site and the projects are administratively separate.
Given outstanding questions about materials (natural stone vs. segmental block), visible appearance, façade options (poured concrete with stone facing, rubble veneer), structural design (stepped vs. monolithic faces), and the need for geotechnical and engineering documentation, the applicant agreed to return with side-elevation drawings, sample materials and manufacturer examples. The commission and applicant agreed to table the matter to the regularly scheduled meeting on May 28.
