Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the After The Fact Variance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board reviews after‑the‑fact retaining‑wall variances on Park Ridge and Winding Lane; staff recommends stabilization and replanting
Summary
Two after‑the‑fact cases — Park Ridge (retaining wall) and 2517 Winding Lane (retaining wall, cantilever deck) — were presented; staff recommended approval as conditioned for Park Ridge and said engineers advised maintaining and stabilizing the existing wall at Winding Lane and adding replanting and stormwater controls.
The board considered multiple after‑the‑fact variances involving retaining walls and stream‑buffer encroachments. Speaker 3 presented Park Ridge Drive (BAR 2516), an after‑the‑fact retaining‑wall setback variance seeking relief from a required 4.25-foot setback to 0.8 feet; staff recommended approval with conditions and noted the wall could have been accounted for in earlier plans but does not present a significant detriment as built.
"This is a retaining wall setback variance from 4.25 feet to 0.8 feet. Staff is recommending approval as conditioned," a staff member said.
At 2517 Winding Lane (BAR 2517) the applicant acknowledged constructing a retaining wall and associated features without submitting a revised site plan. The applicant representative explained engineers visited and concluded it would likely be in the site's best interest to maintain the wall in place and stabilize the slope rather than remove the wall, because removal could compromise existing structures. Staff recommended approval accompanied by replanting and stabilization conditions and asked for numeric corrections to conditions (for example, whether a condition should read 0.9 feet rather than 0 feet).
Board members expressed frustration at repeated after‑the‑fact applications but also asked technical questions about alternative designs and neighbor notice. Staff confirmed that where replanting to stream buffer standards is appropriate it should be required as a condition, and that numeric inconsistencies in condition language needed correction before a final decision.
No formal motions or votes were recorded in the transcript; the board concluded the work session and indicated conditions and corrected site plans would be required before proceeding to formal hearings.
