Planning Commission upholds variance for 9-foot retaining wall at 562A El Pentado Road

The Danville Planning Commission on Sept. 22 denied an appeal and upheld the towns administrative approval of a height variance (VAR 20-0014) that allows a retaining wall up to 9 feet 2 inches at 562A El Pentado Road.

Associate Planner Riley Anderson Baer told the commission staff recommended upholding the variance because the subject lot sits on a steep downslope and the approved residence had been shifted toward the rear to allow fire-truck access. Baer said terracing the walls to meet the 6-foot limit would reduce usable backyard area and cause greater site disturbance; town engineering reviewed the plans and found no drainage impacts. "But staff would recommend the upholding of our decision to support the variance," Baer said.

The homeowner at 562A, who identified himself as Amrit, said the house was pushed back for fire-truck access and the taller retaining-wall segments are largely below grade and not visible from the neighbors property to the west. "We've gone through multiple iterations of just trying to figure this out," the homeowner said, adding they are open to communication with neighboring property owners.

Neighbor and appellant Nelson Cicchetto, of 564 El Pentado Road, said he did not oppose the eastern 9-foot portion but urged conditions to protect trees, access and safety. Cicchetto cited protected trees on or near the shared access and said the private road averages about 13.5 feet wide, well under the fire districts 20-foot minimum in Danville, and described instances of construction trucks blocking the road. He asked the commission to attach conditions such as preserving identified trees, pre-construction drip-line fencing inspections, on-site arborist oversight for root-zone work, staging limits to avoid blocking the shared road and documented fire-district approval of access and site safety plans.

Planning staff and commissioners said many of Cicchettos concerns fall under the building-permit and tree-preservation processes rather than the limited variance the commission was asked to decide. Chief of Planning David Compton explained that the retaining-wall height variance was the discrete issue before the commission and that building and engineering review, arborist recommendations and penalties would address construction methods and tree protection.

After discussion, the commission voted by voice to deny the appeal and leave the towns administrative approval in place. The commission did not attach the neighbors requested conditions as part of the variance decision; staff noted those matters remain subject to building, engineering and tree-preservation review.

What happens next: the homeowner may proceed under the approved building permit and applicable building-division and tree-protection requirements. Neighbors were encouraged to review project plans available online and to contact planning or building staff with concerns.