Commission keeps 14 Eggleston Lane application open after sharp technical and safety debate

The Greenwich Planning & Zoning Commission left the application for 14 Eggleston Lane open after a lengthy exchange among the applicant team, independent engineers and neighbors about stormwater, groundwater and the safety of placing a five‑bedroom house in a low‑lying Shorelands neighborhood.

Attorney Lisa Feinberg (representing the applicant) told commissioners the proposal is a conforming single‑family home that meets current flood‑zone regulations and that DPW, conservation and two third‑party reviews endorsed the submitted stormwater approach. Feinberg said the application includes porous driveways, deep stone bases and other measures designed to meet the town’s drainage manual.

Opposing counsel Bridal Liberati told the commission the lot’s legal status is being litigated (oral argument scheduled May 5) and argued the proposed roughly 3,497‑square‑foot five‑bedroom home would increase impervious cover, remove a screening tree line, and worsen stormwater runoff for adjacent properties. Liberati asked the commission to defer action until the court rules on the lot status.

Independent reviewer Steven Trinkas told the commission he had examined the application and site records and concluded there is insufficient unsaturated soil depth — groundwater was measured near 28–38 inches — so the proposed permeable pavement and gravel systems would likely saturate and fail to provide reliable infiltration or water‑quality treatment. Trinkas warned of nitrogen and hydrocarbon pollutants reaching shallow groundwater and Long Island Sound under some seasonal and tidal conditions.

The applicant’s engineer, Brian Mueller, described two infiltration tests and conservative drawdown calculations that, he said, meet DPW’s 72‑hour requirement; he also argued the proposal avoids filling and that the lowest rear yard area will remain untouched. Commissioners debated whether the DEEP advisory concerns and displacement during coastal flood events constituted a “marginal” or “significant” increase in risk. Because of the technical split and an expired decision extension, the applicant agreed to provide an extension and the commission left the matter open until the next meeting (applicant requested decision extension to May 12).