Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the 308 Melbourne Subdivision topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Neighbors press for more soil testing as commission reviews 308 Melbourne Ave subdivision
Summary
At a Dec. 11 Harbor and Coastal Zone Management Commission meeting, neighbors urged additional percolation testing and warned of chronic basement flooding as the commission reviewed a two‑lot subdivision at 308 Melbourne Avenue; engineers said the revised plans meet detention and infiltration requirements but commissioners added language to the draft consistency finding noting future testing and SWIP requirements.
The Harbor and Coastal Zone Management Commission on Dec. 11 reviewed a final‑review application to subdivide 308 Melbourne Avenue into two lots, hearing technical testimony from the applicant’s team and extended public comment from nearby homeowners who said existing groundwater makes infiltration systems risky.
The commission called the applicant forward and heard from the project architect, Greg DeAngelis, and consultant John Kellard, who described the proposal as a two‑lot subdivision and said revised plans added mitigation for stormwater detention and a trench drain at the proposed driveway. ‘‘They provided one additional lot‑to‑lot trench drain in the driveway to collect the water and infiltrate it into the ground,’’ John said, arguing the revised documents address previous comments.
Neighbors disagreed. Frank Schroeder, who said he lives across from the site, told the commission he consulted an engineer and the New York State stormwater design manual requires more testing for the lot size: ‘‘for an area ... between 7,500 and 10,000 square feet requires 3 test pits, borings, and additionally ... 5 permeability tests,’’ Schroeder said, noting only two pits had been opened for the current submission and saying he would consider an appeal if a resolution passed without more testing.
Resident Robert Levitan described chronic groundwater under his home and said, ‘‘the groundwater under my house is about 4 feet from the surface,’’ adding that he routinely pumps out substantial volumes and worries that infiltrative ‘‘Coltek’’ systems will place more water into soils that are already saturated. Carla Recker and Kara Tannenbaum gave similar descriptions of ongoing sump‑pump use and concern about rising ground saturation on the block.
Village engineer Gino Fravisi and consultant John Kellard responded that field observations and the test‑pit logs match the locations and depths shown on the plans and that the percolation runs in each test pit satisfied the manual’s run‑count requirement. Gino said he ‘‘doesn’t believe’’ the test pits were faked and confirmed he observed casings in the ground for the pits he inspected. John said the design locates mitigation devices a minimum of 2 feet above the seasonal high water table and that if infiltration were not feasible ‘‘we would look at other options such as rain gardens or stormwater detention areas’’ to manage runoff.
Commissioners were split about whether the existing record was sufficient to determine consistency with the village’s Local Waterfront Revitalization Program (LWRP). Several commissioners said they had enough information to decide whether a commercially reasonable design could be developed that would allow a compliant SWIP; others said they wanted clearer documentation or an additional test pit before taking a final action on the design aspects of any future home.
To reflect that split, the chair proposed and the commission agreed to add language to the draft consistency determination stating that the commission’s favorable finding would be based on the evidentiary record showing a reasonably proposed building could be designed such that a compliant SWIP could be crafted, and that future building proposals (the eventual buyer) will be required to satisfy current SWIP testing requirements. Counsel and staff agreed to add a whereas clause to the draft resolution to record that expectation for future applicants.
The commission closed public comment after hearing from four neighbors, discussed the draft language and recorded the amendment to the resolution. The record does not contain a full roll‑call showing individual vote tallies for the final resolution in the transcript provided; staff noted the resolution remains a draft for the public record and that the planning board will have further opportunities to review technical details when a building application is submitted.
Next steps: staff will incorporate the agreed language into the draft resolution and circulate it for the record; any future building application will require a SWIP and the supporting testing and certification required by the New York State stormwater design manual before construction on the second lot proceeds.
