Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Subdivision topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Neighbors press planning board on 308 Melbourne subdivision; board requires driveway, tree and stormwater fixes before plat signing
Summary
The Planning Board left the public hearing open on a proposed subdivision at 308 Melbourne after hearing technical reviews and sustained neighbor opposition; the board directed the applicant to shift a proposed driveway to avoid a street tree, provide detailed replacement planting/species, and supply a redesigned Coltec/infiltration plan for Lot 1 that meets separation from bedrock before the plat can be signed.
The Planning Board on March 26 continued a contentious review of a proposed subdivision at 308 Melbourne, directing the applicant to resolve driveway siting, tree and stormwater technical issues before any subdivision plat is signed.
Applicant counsel Paul Noto presented the subdivision concept and submitted a draft resolution for board review. Planning and engineering consultants flagged several open technical items: one street tree sits within the proposed driveway drip line on Lot 1 and the driveway should be shifted; percolation/test pit results show deeper soils in the rear yard (Lot 2) but shallower refusal near the front yard where proposed Coltec units are currently designed and may not meet the 2‑foot separation requirement from bedrock.
"The only item I believe what may be missing in the plans is a traffic management plan during construction," the board's engineering reviewer said in an earlier presentation and then discussed bedrock separation more specifically for Lot 1. John Kellard told the board the existing front infiltration detail provides only about 1 foot of separation and needs redesign or shallower units to meet the village standard of 2 feet.
Neighbors raised process and substantive objections. Stuart Teakert urged the board not to limit public comment and said the plat lacked required elements. Frank Schroeder and other residents criticized the adequacy of the submitted plat (missing contours, utilities and driveway dimensions), questioned whether percolation testing had been properly witnessed, and warned of repeated subdivision problems in the village. "You cannot bully a board into closing a public hearing when you don't make the documents available in time," Frank Schroeder said, urging full public review.
After hearing testimony and consultant input, the board asked staff to draft a revised resolution that would require the applicant to show a Lot 1 driveway relocated away from the street tree, provide species and location for the replacement tree(s), submit a Coltec/infiltration design for the Lot 1 driveway that achieves the required separation from bedrock (or alternative shallow units), and complete that work prior to plat signing. The public hearing remains open; the board set an April 1 deadline for resubmitted materials if the applicant wishes March 26 deliberations to carry to the April 15 meeting.
The board emphasized that a hypothetical SWIP for Lot 2 does not constitute approval to build on Lot 2 — any future construction would require a full SWIP, board review and permits.
