Subdivision Request and Fears of Increased Flooding on Melbourne Avenue

by Meg Yergin -

Melbourne Avenue is a historic district in the Village with many homes dating back to the mid-1800’s.  It is also a flood-prone area with neighbors reporting significant issues with groundwater flooding impacting basements and foundations.

The Planning Board (PB) is currently reviewing a property owner’s request to subdivide a single lot located at 308 Melbourne Avenue into two building lots.  The Planning Board initiated its review in February 2024.  Over the following 15 months, multiple neighbors have voiced their strong opposition to this request through letters and comments at the public hearing

Fear of Increased Flooding

Many neighbors are worried about the impact additional development will have on groundwater displacement in the neighborhood.  At the March 26, 2025 PB meeting, some neighbors claimed that the project’s required soil and groundwater stormwater testing did not follow the standards of the New York State Stormwater Management Design Manual.  They also reported that the Village Engineer was not present when the testing was done.

Neighbors also spoke out about the potential loss of mature trees anticipated with this project.  No specific plans are in the works for the newly formed lot but, at the April 15, 2025 meeting, Beverley Sherrid, Chair of the Village Tree Committee, estimated that seven mature trees would be lost if a new home is constructed on the new lot.  She reminded the PB that mature trees mitigate flooding and that it takes 30 years for new, smaller trees to provide the same benefit.

In addition, a very large Village-owned tree will need to be removed to make way for a new driveway for the existing home.  Sherrid said her first reaction when she heard that was “can they do that?”  She wondered how a private resident can decide that a Village tree should be destroyed because it is inconvenient for them.  PB Chair Seamus O’Rourke reminded the Board that the applicant would have to rely on the Village to remove the tree.

During the course of the public hearing a number of neighbors asked the PB to consider what was best for the entire community and not just the applicant.  Several individuals told the Board that when other large trees were removed in the past, flooding in their basements increased significantly.

Subdivisions in the Village

One resident at the March 26, 2025 meeting reminded the Board about other subdivisions in the Village that have been problematic, including one on the corner of Beach Avenue and Brook Street, and another on Grove Street.  These two were challenged in court and the Village incurred significant legal expenses.

Another Melbourne resident told the PB how the Pine Street subdivision development resulted in increased flooding for the neighborhood.

Historic Neighborhood

Over the course of the public hearing, many Melbourne property owners spoke about how important it was that the street preserve its historic character.  They described how the proposed removal of tall trees and construction of front yard driveways for this subdivision does not align with the historic nature of the neighborhood.

Subdivision Requirements

If the subdivision is approved by the PB and a home is built on the new lot, the applicant will have to create a new driveway for the existing home.  The current driveway stretches across what would be the new lot.  As the Village Code Section 342-56 requires every single-family residential home to have a minimum of two off-street parking spaces, a new parking area will need to be created.

The applicant submitted a site plan showing a paved driveway area where two cars could park in front of the existing home.  At the March 26, 2025 meeting, PB members discussed whether the proposed parking area is compliant with Section 342-56B (1) of the Code which restricts open parking in the front yard.  At the Apil 15, 2025 meeting, the PB decided to add a condition to their draft resolution stating that it would be up to the Building Department to determine if the applicant required a Special Permit from the Zoning Board of Appeals for the proposed driveway.  O’Rourke pointed out that some homes on the street do have driveways on site in front of their houses.

Sale or No Sale

At the March 26, 2025 meeting, the applicant’s legal counsel, Paul Noto, told the PB that the applicant only wants to construct the new driveway and install the additional stormwater management measures when and if the second lot is sold and improved.  Noto made the point that the applicant may never sell, or the new owner may never develop it.  He argued it would be onerous to make the applicant “jump through hoops” now to make those changes.  

However, at the initial PB meeting in February 2024, the project’s architect, Greg DeAngelis, described the applicant’s subdivision request as “economically necessary” for the family to continue to reside in the existing home.  At the March 26, 2025 meeting, he again reminded the Board that the applicant is requesting the subdivision so that the family can continue to live at 308 Melbourne Avenue.  Those comments appear to indicate that a sale would be imminent following subdivision approval.   

Alicia Moore, AKRF Planning Consultant, reminded the PB that any development proposed for the new lot will require site plan review at the Planning Board.

Proposal by the Planning Board Chair

At the March 26, 2025 meeting, O’Rourke stated that he was not supportive of approving a subdivision that immediately created a zoning non-compliant lot.  That would be the result if the driveway requirements for the existing home had not yet been met when the subdivision is filed.

O’Rourke suggested the Board approve a resolution granting the subdivision but hold off on signing the plat that would formalize the subdivision.  The applicant could then continue to renew the resolution approval until the time that a plan was in place to sell the second lot.  At that time, the applicant would make the changes required by the resolution and the PB would sign the plat to be filed with Westchester County.

At its meeting on April 15, 2025, the PB reviewed conditions on a draft resolution (which was not available to the public prior to the meeting), closed the public hearing and plans to vote on a resolution at its next meeting.