Planning board leaves public hearing open on proposed two‑lot subdivision at 308 Melbourne amid stormwater questions

The Village of Mermanic Planning Board continued its review of a proposed two‑lot subdivision at 308 Melbourne on Jan. 8, 2025, opened the public hearing and left the record open after extensive discussion about stormwater testing and required documentation.

Architect Greg DeAngelis said the applicant had received a consistency resolution from the Harbor and Coastal Zone Commission on Dec. 11 after stormwater review and had revised plans to meet impervious‑surface requirements enacted since the original submission. He said the applicant had prepared test pits and a conceptual plan showing that a zoning‑compliant single‑family house could be built on the proposed Lot 2, and that Lot 1’s driveway would be adjusted so both lots are functional.

Consultants and staff walked the board through outstanding technical items: the need for a formal subdivision plat, clarified SWIP (stormwater) details and test‑pit documentation, the exact locations of test pits and utility connections (water and sewer), and a tree‑preservation/landscaping plan that includes street trees. Project engineer Chris said one test pit on Lot 2 reached 96 inches without encountering groundwater and another reached 66 inches; he told the board the village engineer had inspected and witnessed the test pits.

Neighbors pushed back. Several residents — including Stuart Cheekert and others who live nearby — told the board they had longstanding drainage and sump‑pump issues on Melbourne Avenue and asked for stronger documentation. One speaker said past subdivisions created litigation and taxpayer costs; another said the test pits left in the field did not look like deep excavations and that photographs and clearer field logs were missing. Resident Carlareca said he had “pictures” showing shallow excavations and said, “They did not excavate ... No photos of any kind,” pressing the applicant for evidence.

The board did not vote on the subdivision. Instead it requested the applicant return with the following before further action: a formal, signed subdivision plat; an updated consultant memo and SWIP clarifying test‑pit locations and infiltration measurements; a map showing existing water and sewer services (and notes on easements if utilities cross proposed Lot 2); a landscape/tree‑replacement plan (including street trees and tree‑canopy impacts); and legal guidance or clarifying conditions about whether Lot 1 must be brought into compliance at the time Lot 2 is sold or developed. The board also asked the village engineer and project engineers to reconcile any inconsistencies in test‑pit labeling and the test‑pit chart on the plans.

Board counsel noted it is typical to leave the public hearing open so residents can submit additional materials and the applicant can address outstanding technical questions; the applicant may return after those materials are posted and circulated.

No vote was taken on the subdivision application at this meeting.