Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Retaining Walls 335 Langley topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Land use committee approves retaining‑wall permit for 335 Langley Road amid runoff and tree‑replacement concerns
Summary
The Newton Land Use Committee granted a special permit allowing retaining walls over 4 feet on Lots 4 and 5 at 335 Langley Road, saying engineering memos show grading will slow runoff into Bowen Field. The vote (5–1–1) followed debate over whether a condition allowing future by‑right buildings to proceed without amending the permit should remain.
The Newton Land Use Committee voted to approve a special permit allowing retaining walls taller than 4 feet along the rear lot lines of Lots 4 and 5 at 335 Langley Road.
Attorney Lawrence Lee, speaking for the petitioner, told the committee the site drops about 18–20 feet from the street to the rear and that proposed retaining walls and regrading would ‘‘slow down’’ surface runoff into adjoining Bowen Field, citing engineering letters and a city engineering memo that reached the same conclusion. Lee said the work would make the two lots easier to develop or market while providing ‘‘a controlled runoff’’ path into the field.
Planning staff described revised site plans that show a 10‑foot rear wall and a 4–7‑foot perpendicular wall on Lot 5, and rear walls between 7 and 8 feet on Lot 4 that tie into an existing 4.9–6.2‑foot wall on an adjacent lot. Planner Sondria Berman noted the lots are buildable in an MR‑1 district (Lot 4: 11,117 sq ft; Lot 5: 12,782 sq ft), that a tree permit and demolition permit already issued cover the parcel, and recommended conditions to protect trees and to reference site plans in the decision.
Several councilors said they were uneasy approving the wall without seeing a full building plan. Councilor Randy Block said he was ‘‘very reluctant to support this petition’’ because the petitioner has not shown a development plan. The developer, Mr. Dorenzo, said he had no immediate construction schedule and that the goal was to make the lots more marketable for sale; the committee heard that tree replacement obligations documented in the earlier tree permit would fall to whoever ultimately builds on the lots.
The law department and planning staff explained that an order condition clarifying that subsequent by‑right residential development would not require an amendment to the special permit (provided it does not alter the approved retaining walls) mainly codifies the status quo and helps inspectional‑services staff apply the permit correctly. Councilor Block moved to remove that clause; petitioner counsel and the city attorney urged keeping it as protective clarification, and the amendment to delete the clause failed on roll call.
On final action the committee approved the special permit with the conditions presented, including the plan‑reference and tree‑protection language. The vote was recorded as 5 yes, 1 no, 1 abstention. The committee instructed staff and the law department to refine the condition wording before the petition goes to full council.
What’s next: The committee’s decision includes conditions the petitioner must meet before building permits are issued (plan references, final inspections, and tree‑ordinance compliance). If future work would alter the approved retaining walls, the order gives the inspectional services commissioner leeway to require an amendment and return the matter to the committee.
