Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Retaining Wall Appeal topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Bedford zoning board tables appeal over 12-foot retaining wall after late emails surface
Summary
An appeal of the planning director’s decision on a retaining wall at 16 Suzanne Drive was postponed to March 17 after applicants and town staff submitted supplemental emails at the meeting; the board delayed a decision so members could review the new materials.
The Town of Bedford Zoning Board of Adjustment on Feb. 17 postponed a decision on an appeal related to a retaining wall at 16 Suzanne Drive after the applicants and town staff submitted supplemental emails the same day.
Attorney John Bisson, representing the property owners, asked the board to reverse the planning director’s September 2025 administrative decision and said the application called for a new retaining wall up to 12 feet tall. “You are acting as an appellate body … and I would urge you to do that,” Bisson told the board.
Contractor Tom Gardaki of New Era Excavation said he applied for the permit on April 23, 2025, submitted stamped engineered plans and started construction in May after on-site review with Department of Public Works staff. Gardaki said the wall reached about “5 to 6 feet” when July emails began, and that the Millers had paid roughly $90,000 early in the project. “Total to date would be $225,000,” Gardaki said, adding the full project cost is about $250,000.
Planning Director Becky Hebert told the board she had not received some of the submitted material until roughly 4 p.m. the same day and had not distributed complete copies to members before the hearing. “I did not get multiple emails from you,” Hebert said to the applicant’s representative.
Board members debated whether they could thoroughly examine the late material and question witnesses without adequate time to review it. One member noted that supplemental records distributed at the meeting would limit their ability to follow up during the hearing. After a short recess the applicants requested, and the board granted, a continuance to the March 17 meeting so staff can provide full hard-copy records and trustees can confirm submission deadlines (staff requested supplemental application material by Feb. 19 for the March meeting).
Because the board tabled the appeal, no final ruling was made on whether the planning director erred in issuing the permit or on the proper measurement method for wall height. The board advised the applicants to provide complete records in hard copy and by email before the next hearing.
The appeal remains scheduled for the ZBA’s March 17 meeting; the board did not set a new substantive hearing date beyond that continuance.
