Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Retaining Wall Variance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
After‑the‑fact retaining‑wall variance at 240 Rosebrook Road continued for engineering and photos
Summary
An after‑the‑fact variance request for a large stone retaining wall at 240 Rosebrook Road was continued after extensive questioning about permits, drainage, mature trees and alternatives; applicants were asked to return with engineered site plans and historic photos.
The Zoning Board of Appeals continued an after‑the‑fact variance application for a stone retaining wall at 240 Rosebrook Road after a lengthy hearing in which owners said they did not receive a cease‑and‑desist letter delivered to the builder.
Attorney Michael Murray and contractor Chris Wilson told the board the wall was built to stabilize a steep 22‑foot slope, limit erosion and channel water away from the road. Murray described the application as an "after‑the‑fact" request and said the Lasco family had "clean hands" because they were unaware the builder had proceeded without approved permits.
Owner Matt Lasco told the board they had been "blindsided by the letter" and that, in their view, removing a segment of the wall would create an unsightly gap and could undermine adjacent walls and mature trees. Board members, staff and neighbors questioned why the applicants had not moved the wall back 10 feet, how runoff and root systems would be affected, and whether a multi‑wall or graded solution could avoid a variance.
Staff clarified that only the green highlighted section on the submitted plan lacked grandfathering; the wall along the street most closely matched a pre‑existing wall and was not the contested portion. The board emphasized that even if it favors relief, applicants will still need Planning & Zoning approval for walls over four feet in height.
Several board members said the packet lacked sufficient engineered site plans, detailed topography, tree location, drainage details and historic photos showing how the grade and wall tied to previous conditions. The board asked the applicants to return with an engineered site plan showing topography, tree locations and drainage, and to provide archive photos and a memorandum explaining why alternate grading or the plan shown in the planners memo are not viable.
Given the technical questions and the potential for downstream runoff impacts, the board continued the application to the next meeting to allow applicants to supply the requested materials and to present an engineer to explain drainage and stability assumptions.
