Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Retaining Wall 414 Central topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Owner and neighbors spar over retaining wall and prior excavation at 414 Central Park Avenue South
Summary
At a public hearing on a steep‑slope permit for a retaining wall behind 414 Central Park Ave. S., the applicant described a wall and a tree‑replanting plan to cure a violation; neighbors and an adjacent property owner urged conditions on access, compaction/restoration and protection of a decorative wall and gas meter. The board adjourned the hearing to Oct. 15 to gather engineering input and neighbor comments.
The planning board heard a public hearing Monday on a steep‑slope permit application for a retaining wall behind 414 Central Park Avenue South, a commercial property where the owner has been addressing a prior violation.
Engineer Elliot (speaker 14) said the work is intended to stabilize a steep slope behind the building, install a segmental retaining wall and replant trees above the wall to prevent debris and water intrusion into the structure. He described the wall as a precast, segmental system and said the scheme minimizes the need for concrete trucks and deep foundations.
Neighbor Joseph Flinter (speaker 16), who owns the adjacent gas station property, told the board that last‑week grading lowered the applicant’s grade 8–20 inches in places and that his own decorative wall and grade could be impacted. “My wall could be damaged because right now there’s nothing holding it up anymore,” Flinter said, and urged hand placement, tamping in 6‑inch lifts, and protective measures for the gas meter.
Staff and board members said the town’s bureau of engineering would review the neighbor’s technical concerns. Staff suggested that engineering and building department comments might generate permit conditions — for example, requirements for compaction, protection of utilities, or alternate access to minimize risk to adjacent properties.
The applicant’s engineer said the proposed rear access is achievable with small equipment (mini‑excavator, backhoe) and that the wall blocks are set in place rather than poured in situ; he also said the project includes replanting native tree species above the wall and a mulch/groundcover approach to reduce maintenance.
After public comment and a request from the board for written engineering input from the neighbor and the bureau of engineering, the board adjourned the hearing to Oct. 15 and asked staff to circulate any engineering responses and possible permit conditions to the board and the applicant prior to that meeting.
