Proposed Garden Road Project Irks Neighbors, Stumps Board

Controversy erupted during the Planning Board meeting last Wednesday as a proposed construction project at 80 Garden Road drew a number of angry complaints. 

The site plan, which has been in the works since 2006, would create seven new housing lots on the property that some say could have a significant negative impact on the environment.

The proposed building zone is currently a marshland, and already suffers from a number of drainage issues that have led to sustained flooding on rainy days. 

Although the Village has added sediment chambers to sift storm water and prevent pipe backup, the problems have yet to be completely fixed.  Members of the Planning Board spoke about the worry that this project would exacerbate these issues.

"We are aware that this is a very environmentally sensitive area," said attorney Paul Jason, who represents the property owners. 

Jason went on to explain how the project would alleviate environmental concerns by properly protecting the wetlands and draining storm water.  His proposal included a water retention basin in the middle of the new property as well as a series of draining pipes – one for each lot.

But not everybody was convinced, including one neighbor who referred to Jason's words as "silver-tongued," and another who explained that his tennis court was already completely flooded, and that more flooding would be catastrophic for his home.  Many others came to voice their concerns with the environmental sensitivity of the project, including representatives from Fenway Golf Club and a number of homeowners around Garden and Cushman roads. 

According to Village Planner Liz Marrinan, the Village's environmental engineers spent time running a number of analyses on the wetlands, including test pits and soil boring.  There were two main issues with the results:

1. Much of the soil on this property consists of clay, which water can't easily percolate. 
2. The water levels in the area are seasonal – it will ascend and descend based on the climate and temperature.

"Due to [these issues], results were inconclusive," Marrinan explained.  Engineers could potentially use a computerized program to further analyze environmental impacts, but "the formulas are what there's some debate over," according to Marrinan.

"The law basically says that you can't increase the peak rate of discharge below a non-developed situation," said Marrinan.  In other words, if the Village determines that construction would further aggravate environmental issues, it can't be done. 

Because of this, the Planning Board was reluctant to hand out a negative declaration.

"Our feeling is that in the circumstance, it's appropriate for the Board to re quire the applicants to file a full environmental impact statement," said attorney Carl Finger, who represents a number of neighboring homeowners.   He noted that the property owners had already changed their site plan multiple times over the past four years.

"Each time they address one issue, another comes up," Finger added.  "[A full environmental impact statement] would allow all of these issues to be adequately vetted."

Ultimately, discussion on the project was held over for a future meeting.  The Board also requested further analysis of the downstream impacts of the lots, more information about the seasonal water table, and a detailed maintenance schedule for the proposed storm water management system.