Consultant presents Chestnut Street drainage study; three repair options with six‑figure to seven‑figure costs and grant opportunities

Brandy Nelson, an engineer with Tighe & Bond, presented a completed feasibility and hydraulic study of the Chestnut Street drainage area that stretches north of Crossmore Road and discharges under Route 308 into Landsman Kill. The study modeled a 25‑year storm and identified capacity constraints, ownership/easement gaps and physical obstructions that contribute to repeated residential flooding.

Nelson said the watershed modeled covers approximately 66.7 acres and in a 25‑year storm produces roughly 36 cubic feet per second at peak flow (about 44 cfs for a 50‑year event). Field observations and a licensed land survey found pipes pitched improperly, pipe runs that are nearly flat (reducing conveyance) and structures placed inside older drainage easements. Residents have provided photos of standing water and yard inundation along Seymour and Chestnut streets.

The consultant outlined three planning‑level alternatives:

- A diversion/reroute option (Alternative 1a) that intercepts some upstream flow, constructs new storm piping and replaces the culvert under Chestnut Street — planning estimate about $1,580,000.

- An upsizing/replacement option (Alternative 1b) that maintains the existing swale alignment but upsizes the culvert under Chestnut Street to 36 inches and improves downstream piping to the outlet — planning estimate about $1,060,000.

- A daylighting/grass‑swale option that converts the downstream pipe reach to an open grass swale (2 feet deep, 9 feet wide) where right‑of‑way permits it — planning estimate about $1,020,000.

Nelson said baseline improvements common to all options include replacing the culvert at Star Drive, installing catch basins on Chestnut and improving the Crossmore/Chestnut intersection drainage. The study also documented that portions of the drainage way carry recorded easements from the 1950s while other sections have no recorded easement, meaning the village would need to obtain easements for long‑term maintenance in some upper reaches.

Trustees and residents discussed tradeoffs. Several residents expressed opposition to an open daylighted swale through residential back yards; Nelson said a two‑foot‑deep grass swale is not a steep “ditch” but acknowledged neighbors’ concerns. The board discussed maintenance responsibility: preserving a natural swale would require ongoing village oversight and neighbor cooperation, while a fully piped solution requires rights to maintain pipe runs and catch basins.

Nelson flagged funding opportunities. The state’s new Resilient Watershed grant round is open with applications due June 4; Tighe & Bond had also previously helped nearby villages secure Climate Smart Communities grants and the consultant recommended pursuing that program and other Consolidated Funding Application (CFA) opportunities. The study recommends the village consider applying for grants and using CHIPS road funds where allowable. Nelson suggested a planning assumption of a 20% local match for major grants and advised the board to consider setting aside roughly $300,000 across the current and next budget cycles as a preliminary match/commitment if the village intends to pursue state funding.

The consultant’s recommended first step was the upsizing/replacement approach (option 1b) as the least intrusive near‑term solution: upsize the Chestnut–Star culvert to 36 inches, clean and preserve the existing swale where possible and secure easements in the upper watershed. Trustees asked staff to evaluate grant opportunities and return with a recommended funding plan and timeline; staff said they would prepare material for upcoming meetings and for grant applications.

Ending

The board received the study and agreed to pursue funding avenues. Trustees directed staff and the consultant to prepare grant application materials (Resilient Watershed and CFA), to consider CHIPS funds for eligible work and to return with more detailed cost and match scenarios; no construction decision or bonding vote was taken at this meeting.