Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Fayetteville planning board denies as-built retaining wall, orders code action
Summary
The Village of Fayetteville planning board denied a site-plan application and approved an enforcement order after finding a 20‑inch retaining wall was built without approval, likely sits in the New York State Department of Transportation right‑of‑way, and does not meet village code or structural requirements. The board directed code enforcement to issue a remedy order and advised the applicant to obtain an updated survey and proper permits.
The Fayetteville planning board on Tuesday denied a site‑plan application for a front retaining wall built without prior approval and directed village code enforcement to issue an order to remedy the violation.
The decision followed an applicant update in which the property owner said the small, roughly 20‑inch wall of stacked cement blocks was installed because “when it rains it washes debris and gravel onto the sidewalk,” and that the wall was intended to keep pedestrians from slipping. The applicant said the wall rests on about 6–8 inches of gravel and can be removed.
Board members raised multiple concerns before voting to deny the application. The chair said the board lacks an updated survey showing the Department of Transportation (DOT) setback and noted that prior instrument surveys used for real‑estate transactions often do not include DOT rights‑of‑way. ‘‘We can’t approve it’’ without that information, the chair said, adding the application was incomplete on design details and that the wall was built without site‑plan approval.
Members also questioned the wall’s structural adequacy and compliance with village standards. A board member explained that a durable footing must extend below the frost line and said such footings generally must reach 36 inches or more in local conditions. The board noted cement block cannot be left as an exposed exterior finish under village requirements and asked for cross‑section details and a plan showing contours and drainage.
The motion to deny—made by the chair and seconded by board member John—cited likely DOT right‑of‑way encroachment, an incomplete application lacking an updated survey and design details, structural and material deficiencies, inconsistency with adjacent properties and village character, and the fact the wall was constructed without prior approval. The motion carried on a voice vote in which no opposition was voiced.
Following the vote, the board explained next steps to the applicant. Staff said the board will request that the code officer issue an order to remedy the violation; the board discussed a compliance period (they referenced both 15 and 30 days as typical steps) and warned that failing to remedy the violation could lead to a court appearance. Board members advised the applicant to obtain a full updated survey that includes DOT setbacks and to submit revised plans or a sign permit if she wants to pursue permissible plantings or minor, removable features.
The board also discussed possible sources of the gravel and erosion, including prior driveway conditions or runoff from neighboring properties, and encouraged the applicant to include contours on any future survey so the village can assess drainage issues rather than inferring origins from photographs.
Administrative business followed: the board approved the March and April minutes and set the next meeting for July 6 before adjourning.
The applicant and board members were present for the discussion; the village staff will follow up with the code enforcement officer and, if necessary, contact the DOT to confirm the exact extent of the right‑of‑way before any further permanent approvals are considered.
