Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Public Safety topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Neighbor alleges unpermitted retaining wall at Five Vine Street; planning board orders inspection and continues case
Summary
An after‑the‑fact grading permit for a retaining wall at Five Vine Street drew strong public complaint on May 12; a neighbor said the wall was built without permits or engineering, prompting the board to request site inspections, geotechnical review and to continue the matter to June 9.
At the May 12 meeting of the Braintree Planning Board, an after‑the‑fact grading permit application for work at Five Vine Street prompted extended public comment and concern about public safety and property encroachment.
Project engineer Jackson Griffiths described calculations for the retaining wall, reporting a net cut/fill of about 101 cubic yards and a previously disturbed area of roughly 3,551 square feet. He said two trees were removed and that the applicant will plant four replacement trees under a restoration plan.
Neighbor Julia Allesie (11 Vine St.) told the board that the wall was constructed without building permits, engineering stamps, inspections or a survey. "The visible portion of this wall reaches over 5 feet high," she said, and alleged the wall was built on or immediately adjacent to the property line, leaving insufficient setback for maintenance and creating safety and drainage risks. She said her privacy fence now sits only six inches from the new wall and that trucks had delivered large volumes of fill during construction.
The engineer said his firm became involved after the wall had been built and that the current application documents the work and proposes remediation steps. Planning Board members pressed for more detail: pre‑construction surveys, full measurements of wall heights along both sideyards, footing and drainage details, proof of contractor qualifications, and verification of fill source and composition. Several members expressed concern about the recurring pattern of unpermitted work and the risk to abutters.
The board directed staff to arrange a site visit and asked the applicant to retain a structural engineer for inspection, to provide a stamped survey and geotechnical information, and to address whether the wall encroaches on abutter or MBTA property. The board continued the Five Vine Street matter to its June 9 meeting to allow the applicant to supply the requested documentation.
What happens next: Applicant to provide a stamped survey, structural/engineer inspection report and geotechnical data; the board will conduct a site visit and review the peer/technical reports at the continued hearing.
