Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Stormwater Grading topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Rye Brook planning board continues Four Little Kings Lane project after neighbors raise stormwater, fill and aesthetic concerns
Summary
The Rye Brook Planning Board continued its review of the Four Little Kings Lane redevelopment after neighbors raised concerns about a proposed three-to-five-foot fill, drainage toward adjacent basements and the visual impact of a boulder-lined retaining area; the board requested updated hydroCAD analysis focused on flows to adjacent property lines and asked the applicant to submit revised plans in advance of next month’s meeting.
The Rye Brook Planning Board continued the public hearing on the Four Little Kings Lane residential redevelopment after neighboring property owners urged the board to require more detailed hydrologic analysis and to reduce the amount of imported fill.
Neighbors described recurring water in basements and yards and voiced specific worries that regrading and a boulder-lined retaining edge could increase runoff toward adjacent properties. "My garage, basement, and so on get wet," said resident David Loenstein, who lives adjacent to the site and described an existing 21% grade toward his home. Another neighbor, Colin McCree, noted the bottom of the existing steps lines up with his basement window and asked the applicant to demonstrate the project would not increase flows to that window.
Project engineer Greg Kupipoli said the design does not regrade the west side toward neighbors and relies on an underground infiltration (Cultex-style) system sized to capture runoff from the site’s impervious areas. Kupipoli reported hydroCAD outputs showing a reduction in peak surface runoff for the direction that flows to Little Kings Lane (pre-development peak flow about 0.86 cubic feet per second; post-development about 0.61 cfs) and said percolation testing was conducted on site.
Board members, citing the village steep-slope standard, expressed concern about the proposed three-to-five feet of fill and whether that represented the "minimum disturbance necessary" to provide a reasonable use of the property. Chair Rob Goodman asked whether alternatives — such as contour adjustments, smaller fills, or retaining walls — could achieve the applicant’s stated goal of making the rear yard safer and more accessible without the same amount of imported material.
The applicant’s representative said the family has small children and needs fewer, shallower stairs to make the yard usable; the applicant also said the design team split the infiltration system into two nine-unit systems to reduce concentrated impacts and provided renderings showing screening with evergreen plantings and shade trees.
After extended technical discussion, the board asked the applicant to run an updated hydroCAD analysis that specifically models runoff toward adjacent property lines (including the neighbor at 804 King Street) and to submit revised grading/stormwater plans and any model inputs in advance of the next meeting. The board also encouraged neighbors who wish to retain peer reviewers to submit any expert reports at least two weeks before the hearing so staff and board members can review them.
The matter was adjourned to the next scheduled Planning Board meeting to allow the applicant to revise the plans and provide the requested hydraulic analyses.
