TAB denies 9‑lot waiver request for 9‑foot screening wall after resident drainage and privacy concerns
Get AI-powered insights, summaries, and transcripts
Subscribe
Summary
A waiver to allow a 9‑foot screening wall (instead of the 6‑foot maximum) along drainage‑sensitive rear yards was denied June 25 after public commenters raised concerns about drainage and visibility. The applicant said the wall was needed to address a 3‑ft grade change and to provide privacy to future residents.
The Enterprise Town Advisory Board on June 25 voted to deny a waiver request that would have allowed a 9‑foot screening wall along the rear of nine lots in a proposed single‑family subdivision at Hinson Street and Richmore Avenue.
Applicant representative Mark Mulhall told the TAB the request responds to “type B” lots that drain to the rear and that the added height would provide privacy and help manage drainage into a five‑foot drainage easement to be maintained by the project's homeowners association. Mulhall said the nine lots in question are atypical and that “the ultimate height together is the same as what a retaining wall and a screen wall could be together.”
Public comment and board concerns: Nearby resident Don Escoto (identified in the hearing) said he owns an adjacent lot and asked, “where does that water go?” expressing concern that concentrated drainage could flow into neighbors’ yards. Other speakers and board members pressed for clarification about materials and openings for drainage; staff and the applicant said the plans call for a CMU/block wall with drainage openings into the drainage easement and that the HOA would maintain the easement. One board member said the project “meets code as is” with a 6‑foot wall and questioned the need to build higher walls from the outset.
Outcome: The TAB moved to deny WS250413 (waiver to increase wall height) and the motion carried by voice vote.
Context and technical points - Proposed change: increase screening wall from 6 ft (code maximum) to 9 ft for nine lots along the western portion of the development. - Applicant rationale: ground slope/grade creates a 3‑ft effective difference between house pad and lowest point of backyard; raising the screen wall to 9 ft would achieve the same overall vertical separation as a 3‑ft retaining wall plus a 6‑ft wall. - Public concerns: potential concentration of drainage directed to adjacent lots; visibility and wall materials; nearby vacant parcel owner (adjacent to the east) had not been anticipated as an opponent and was encouraged to meet with the applicant.
Next steps: The denial removes TAB support for the waiver at this stage. The applicant may revise the design (for example by using a combination of retaining walls and 6‑ft screen walls or additional drainage mitigation) and return to the TAB or pursue county hearings.
Ending: The TAB decision reflects neighborhood concern about back‑yard drainage and the board's preference for meeting code rather than building higher dividing walls where alternatives exist.