Bedford Zoning Board of Adjustment Meeting – March 17, 2026

This meeting of the Bedford Zoning Board of Adjustment was convened to hear an appeal of an administrative decision regarding the issuance and subsequent revocation of a building permit for retaining walls at 16 Suzanne Drive. The primary issue was the proper method for measuring the height of a retaining wall under the town's zoning ordinance, which was silent on the matter at the time the permit was issued. After extensive testimony from the applicant's contractor, town staff, and public comments, the board voted 5-0 to uphold the decisions of the building inspector and town planner, denying the appeal.

Consent Calendar

• The board unanimously approved the minutes from the February 17, 2026 meeting (5-0).

Public Comments & Testimony

• Ed Wolfe (10 Suzanne Drive) expressed strong opposition to the 20-foot concrete wall, citing safety hazards (obstructed line of sight from his driveway), devaluation of his property, and the need to follow town codes. He urged the board to deny the appeal.
• Mac McMahon (also of Suzanne Drive) noted that the wall is built only nine inches from the neighbor's property line, far less than the 25-foot side setback required for structures.
• Brian DeFosis (Director of Public Works) clarified that DPW’s role was limited to a slope easement and that they had no involvement in approving the wall design or location.

Discussion Items

• Appeal Argument (John Bisson, attorney for the applicants): Bisson argued that the permit was issued in April 2025 without any objection, and that the town’s later interpretation of how to measure retaining wall height (from footing to top) was a new rule applied retroactively after the wall was largely built. He presented emails showing that the town’s building inspector and planner did not clearly revoke the permit or explain the measurement method until September 2025, after $175,000 had already been spent. He emphasized that the applicants relied on the permit and the town’s silence during construction.
• Contractor Testimony (Tom Gardaki, New Era Excavation): Gardaki testified that in his experience, retaining wall height is always measured from finish grade to the top of the exposed wall, not from the footing. He noted that the engineered plan for this wall was submitted to the town and the permit was approved despite the 12-foot design. He stated that contractors rely on the town to review permits and flag any zoning issues.
• Town Staff Testimony (Becky Hebert, Planning Director; Matt Lavoy, Code Official): Hebert explained that the permit was issued in error because it was not noticed that the wall exceeded six feet in the setback. She stated that the town’s interpretation was based on the IRC (International Residential Code) and dictionary definitions, measuring from the bottom of the footing to the top of the wall. She also noted that the wall as built is not in the location shown on the approved plans, being much closer to the property line. Lavoy added that the IRC (R404.1) explicitly defines retaining wall height from the footing, and that this is the standard used statewide.
• Applicant’s Rebuttal: Bisson challenged the town’s process, noting that key witness Terry Carter (the building inspector who issued the permit) was directed not to attend. He also highlighted that the location issue was never part of the original revocation letter and only surfaced during the hearing. He argued that the town’s interpretation was arbitrary and that the board should reverse the decision.

Key Outcomes

• The board voted 5-0 to uphold the decisions of the building inspector and town planner regarding the interpretation of how a retaining wall’s height is measured. The motion, moved by a board member, stated that while the ordinance does not expressly define the measurement, measuring from the bottom of the footing is consistent with dictionary definitions, the IRC building code, and the purpose of a retaining wall to hold back land. The motion also noted that this interpretation is consistent with the engineer’s initial drawings.
• As a result, the appeal was denied, and the stop work order and permit revocation remain in effect. The applicants may seek a variance or modify the wall to comply with the interpretation.
• The board clarified that municipal estoppel arguments are not within their jurisdiction for an administrative appeal; the appropriate remedy for claims of unfairness would be a separate damages lawsuit.