Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Shoreline Variance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board requires removal of retaining wall section on town property but leaves remainder in place
Summary
The Adams County Board of Adjustment heard a variance request from Michael Swickla to retain a new retaining wall at 2134 Mstead Street in Quincy. The board ordered removal of the portion of the wall on town property and allowed the remainder to remain, citing avoidance of additional soil disturbance; vote tally not specified in the transcript.
The Adams County Board of Adjustment on an unspecified date considered a variance request from Michael Swickla for a retaining wall at 2134 Mstead Street in the town of Quincy.
Staff told the board the request cited section 396-8B2D of the Adams County Shoreline wetland and habitat protection ordinance and that the town of Quincy objected at its May 21 meeting. Staff said the required setback for the wall is 25 feet from the property line/right-of-way and that a utility pole and a small post mark the property line.
The board and staff discussed whether the wall was new construction or a modification; staff said the wall was poured without a permit and was built at the same time as a shed that was not shown on the original zoning permit. Staff also described the wall forms as two feet wide and said the visible form lines could be counted to estimate span and that the wall’s higher sections may be approximately 46 feet in total length (photo-based estimate in the packet).
Neighbors offered public comment. A nearby property owner identified as Pam said the wall lies about 11 feet from her lot and warned that cutting the wall back could route additional water toward the street and into driveways. Another neighbor at 2130 Market Street said the wall was built "knowingly" without a permit and objected to retroactive variances for work done without permits. The applicant said, "I didn't know I needed a permit," and added that he had lived in the area for decades.
After public comment the board considered motions. One motion—described in discussion as requiring that any portion of the wall on town property be removed and leaving the remainder in place—carried. Board members who supported the motion emphasized concerns that removing more of the wall could disturb soil and worsen drainage problems; members who opposed the motion cited the lack of an initial permit and the need for permit compliance. The transcript does not record a numerical vote tally.
What happens next: staff advised the applicant must remove the portion of the wall that lies on town property and that any remaining work to meet setback requirements will be handled through the county’s zoning process; staff also discussed options such as cutting back the top section, adding filter cloth and gravel, or tapering the wall to stabilize soil.
