Planning Board continues King Hill grading permit after neighbors raise dust, drainage and retaining-wall concerns

The Town of Braintree Planning Board continued a public hearing on a grading permit for 55 King Hill Road on July 8 after multiple neighbors raised concerns about dust, drainage and a large retaining wall constructed close to the property line.

The application (legal notice cites special permit 135-1201 under Master and Law Chapter 48, sections 9 and 11 and the Braintree zoning ordinance Chapter 135, Articles 5, 6, 11 and 12) was filed by Charles B. Almi III to add building additions and expand a driveway, regrade the rear yard and construct a retaining wall up to six feet tall. Applicant engineer Sean Hardy of Hardy & Man Design Group told the board the work will require roughly 8,100 cubic yards of material brought to the site, would raise impervious area from approximately 5,300 to 7,700 square feet, and proposes nine Kultec 330 XL HD infiltration chambers sized to reduce runoff for storms up to the 100-year event. Hardy said groundwater was encountered at about 48 inches and the chambers were placed to provide required separation to groundwater.

Neighbors and their attorney pressed the board for protections. Attorney Mike Modestino, representing adjoining property owners including Ronald and Roger Aiello, said the nearby residents are not opposed to the house improvements but are "concerned about dust problems" and drainage impacts; he submitted photographs showing recent material on the site and asked that construction fencing and erosion/dust controls be imposed. Neighbor Ronnie Hall told the board he has lived on the street his whole life and said the current rear slope is "very high" and he is worried about safety and ongoing dust.

Board members and staff noted that a minor stormwater permit will be required by DPW and that DPW asked the applicant to clarify the operations and maintenance (O&M) budget and provide test pits as part of the formal stormwater filing. Member Connolly requested that fall-protection measures for the top of the proposed retaining wall be noted in any decision; Member Kim and others asked for more substantial landscaping or an offset from the property line so the wall is not constructed directly on the line and so that neighbors have vegetative buffers. Several board members also urged that on-site work be paused until the requested information and protections are supplied; they recommended covering exposed stockpiles and implementing standard erosion controls to limit windborne dust.

After discussion, the board voted to continue the public hearing to the board's August meeting and directed the applicant to supply: a structural/fall-protection plan for the retaining wall, a landscaping/off‑set plan to mitigate the visual and drainage impacts, and a stormwater permit filing addressing DPW comments (including O&M). The record shows the continuation motion carried unanimously.

Next steps: The applicant must submit the requested materials and coordinate stormwater permitting with DPW; the board will review those materials at the continued August hearing and may add conditions such as construction fencing, dust/erosion controls and required fall protection.