Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Coastal Flooding Compensatory Storage topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Chair presses Orienta Beach Club on lost flood storage after pool redesign
Summary
Commissioners asked for technical evidence and a variance briefing after designers said raising a pool deck at 1025 Rushmore would eliminate about 1,500 cubic yards of on‑site flood storage, creating a potential Policy 11 conflict and triggering a planning‑board variance discussion.
The Meranak Harbor Coastal Zone Management Commission scrutinized a proposed pool renovation at the Orienta Beach Club on Nov. 19, 2025, focusing on how grading changes would affect coastal flood storage.
The chair told the applicant’s team the project as proposed would remove ‘‘about 1,500 cubic yards of flood storage’’ from the property and said the commission’s long‑standing interpretation of Policy 11 generally requires no net fill below base flood elevation. The chair asked the applicant to substantiate claims that the net loss is ‘‘de minimis’’ and to show why compensatory storage cannot be provided on site.
The applicant’s engineers said the deck would be raised to elevation 13 (existing pool decks are roughly 10.5 feet, cabanas about 14.5 feet) and that on‑site conditions — shallow groundwater (about 3 feet), buried utilities and existing structures — make it difficult to provide compensatory storage in the floodplain. "Our depth of groundwater is like 3 feet," an engineer said, and another member of the design team described the projected reduction as "de minimis," noting the Long Island Sound’s large volume.
Commissioners pressed for more robust, documented evidence. The chair directed the applicant to provide clear pre/post flood maps, topographic elevations for the two adjacent residences, and technical backing for any groundwater or utility constraints the team cites. Commissioner comments repeatedly asked the applicant to quantify where the displaced water would go in a severe surge and to illustrate the post‑project flood footprint.
The commission also asked the team to brief the board on the planning‑board variance standards the applicant would rely on if it seeks a variance instead of redesigning the grading. A commissioner suggested the next submission should include a explicit variance memorandum so the commission could evaluate the likely planning‑board arguments.
Next steps: the applicant said it would provide more detailed technical material and consult village staff and counsel about sequencing (consistency finding versus seeking a planning variance). Commissioners did not vote; the chair reiterated a village moratorium tied to pending stormwater regulation changes that limits formal approvals until that code work is completed.
The commission will revisit the file after the applicant submits the requested flood‑mapping, groundwater/utility substantiation and a variance briefing.
