Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Trees topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Residents press board over tree removals and flooding risks at 308 Melbourne; hearing continued for consultant review
Summary
Neighbors and the Village Tree Committee urged the Planning Board to preserve mature street and on‑site trees during consideration of a two‑lot subdivision at 308 Melbourne; the board closed the public hearing and scheduled further review after consultants examine plans submitted the day of the meeting.
The Planning Board heard extensive public comment April 15 on a subdivision and site plan for 308 Melbourne Avenue, with neighbors and the Village Tree Committee urging stronger protections for mature trees and warning that past nearby development increased flooding.
Residents described recurring basement flooding and cautioned that removing large, mature trees — which provide canopy, shade and stormwater benefits — would worsen local flooding and alter the historic character of the block. Beverly Sherrod, chair of the Village Tree Committee, told the board the village tree law is intended to preserve and increase canopy and stressed the value of mature specimens for flood control and neighborhood ecology.
Susan Oakley of Tarbell Land Design and arborist Michael Nowak reviewed recent plan revisions. Nowak told the board that plans now show drip‑line protection for street trees and that a northern street tree is in such poor condition the arborist recommends removal for safety; he asked the municipality to place the tree on its removal list. Oakley said she had not yet seen the final revised plan set but acknowledged the plans submitted that afternoon purported to add the requested tree protections.
Several residents recounted stormwater problems after other nearby development and pressed for robust infiltration testing and third‑party verification. One commenter asked that infiltration tests be repeated under village observation; another said prior field tests were rushed and incomplete.
Board members and consultants said many technical issues — including a revised shallow coltec stormwater design and engineering notes — had been addressed, but agreed they needed time to review the updated materials that arrived the same day. The board voted to close the public hearing, require hard copies of the revised plans for consultants, and take up the matter again at a follow‑up meeting (the board discussed the next available dates and agreed to an April 23 review, with a fuller vote to follow after consultant confirmation).
The board also discussed including a condition that the building department must approve any driveway proposed for open parking in the front yard, tying driveway acceptability to the village code section cited by staff.
