Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Residents urge trustees to impose moratorium on Melbourne Avenue construction over chronic flooding concerns
Summary
Multiple Melbourne Avenue residents told trustees that groundwater inundation has worsened and urged a moratorium on new construction—particularly the contested 308 Melbourne subdivision—until village stormwater plans, outside arborist reviews, and capital funding are in place.
Dozens of residents pressed the Village of Mamaroneck Board of Trustees to halt new construction on Melbourne Avenue and take capital action after a wave of public comment at the board meeting.
Dr. Robert Levitan, who identified himself as a long‑time resident and physician, described chronic groundwater intrusion that forces his household to pump ‘‘more than 150 gallons of water per minute’’ via long hoses and said the community had submitted a flood‑mitigation plan to the planning board. ‘‘Without a defined and actionable stormwater management plan… I respectfully urge the board of trustees to enact a moratorium on any new construction on Melbourne Avenue,’’ Levitan said.
Multiple neighbors backed the call. Carlo Reca criticized the planning‑board process for the 308 Melbourne subdivision and urged hiring independent consultants and arborists; Jelena Van Meter and Cara Tanenbaum said previous approvals have not prevented worsening flooding and asked trustees to strengthen land‑use rules or impose a temporary moratorium. Reca said the subdivision work includes excavation and a planned driveway that could deepen groundwater impacts, and he asked the village to retain an outside arborist to verify whether a large tree should be removed.
Village staff told residents the village has not approved removal of the tree, that the village’s initial assessment found no immediate threat, and that the board would retain an outside arborist for confirmation. The chair and staff also said no taxpayer funds had been approved for tree removal as of the meeting.
Trustees agreed to review resident concerns, and staff noted prior related work sessions. Several trustees said they would pursue further information from the planning board and village engineers and consider whether additional review or temporary restrictions are appropriate.
Next steps: staff will confirm whether the planning‑board approvals complied with required code standards and return to the board with options for possible moratoria or procedural changes.
