Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Grade Variance Retaining Wall topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Neighbors prevail as Leawood board denies grade‑change and retaining‑wall request at Overbrook Road
Summary
A proposal to install a 5.5‑ft retaining wall and accept a 4.5‑ft grade change at 12402 Overbrook Road was denied after neighbors objected that the wall would block golf‑course views and that the current house placement contributed to the problem; planning staff said public‑works drainage plans were approved but the board found variance criteria unmet.
The Leawood Board of Zoning Appeals denied a variance request for a substantial grade change and retaining wall at 12402 Overbrook Road following public opposition from adjacent homeowners.
Architect Bruce Wetland, speaking for the property owners and the landscape contractor, said the tear‑down/rebuild lot has an exceptionally steep fall to the back (roughly eight feet over 35–40 feet) and that a natural‑stone retaining wall would create a usable, flatter backyard for gardening and reduce erosion. Wetland said planning and public‑works staff had reviewed drainage and that, in his understanding, the rule limiting grade change for tear‑down/rebuilds applies only during the initial rebuild window and that later work could be more disruptive and costly.
Neighbors Katar and Cassan Mahobian, whose property sits immediately adjacent, said the new home was oriented toward their house and that the proposed retaining wall would further obstruct their view of the golf course and materially reduce their property’s value. Another attendee, prospective owner Steve Neble, supported the retaining wall for yard usability and erosion control. Board members discussed technical points about when the one‑foot grading limitation applies for tear‑down/rebuild projects and noted public‑works had reviewed drainage plans; despite that, several variance criteria (including impact on adjacent property rights) received negative votes and the board voted to deny the variance request.
The board informed the applicant the denial would be memorialized in writing and that staff would be available to discuss alternatives.
