Grand Island board discusses final federal review of waterfront plan as resident driveway triggers consistency review

Members of the Town of Grand Island's Comprehensive Plan Review Board spent most of their meeting reviewing the town's Local Waterfront Revitalization Program (LWRP), which the town and state have adopted and which is currently in a 30-day review at the federal level.

Board members said the town's LWRP expands the waterfront boundary to include headwaters and creek corridors rather than a truncated shoreline area, allowing the town to take a watershed-level approach to grants, trail planning and habitat work. Staff told the board the federal review began on Feb. 5 and, barring unexpected comments, the town expects the review to conclude within about 30 days and lead to adoption by late spring.

The board also examined a recent application from a resident, identified in meeting materials as Mr. Degler, to install a driveway culvert that would span a mapped waterway called Little Big 6 Mile Creek. Because the proposed driveway would straddle the creek, the application triggers the LWRP's consistency review process. Town staff and board members described the triggered review as the next step before state and federal permitting, and said the applicant has already applied to the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.

Board members and staff discussed technical and procedural concerns raised by the driveway proposal: the application drawing shows two side-by-side culverts, each about 36 inches in diameter and about 30 feet long (a combined span of roughly 60 feet across the driveway), and board members said that if upstream or downstream crossings use different diameters there could be flow or flood impacts. Town staff said the code enforcement officer, Ron Milks, will coordinate with the New York State Department of State, the DEC and the Corps to determine the level of review required and to collect engineering assessments.

The board emphasized the difference between discussion and formal action: the board is responsible for the LWRP's consistency determination on whether a proposed action conforms to the town's adopted waterfront policies, but the Corps and DEC retain independent permitting authority and may impose separate conditions or require mitigation. Members said typical outcomes include approval with conditions (for example, erosion/sediment controls and revegetation) or denial without prejudice until the applicant submits revised plans.

A consistent theme of the meeting was process: board members reviewed an existing flowchart in Appendix A of the LWRP and urged the town to produce a clearer, time-lined workflow and a digital, fillable application so applicants and staff have predictable deadlines. The board asked that the town engineer be consulted automatically on all projects that could affect waterways, rather than leaving that call to a single reviewer. Staff said they will ask code enforcement to log a completeness determination before starting the statutory clock for the 15- or 30-day responses that are in the town's consistency procedures.

Board members also urged caution about temporary construction features such as cofferdams and discussed the upstream/downstream cumulative effects of repeated driveway and road crossings on flood behavior, citing multiple existing culverts on the same watercourse as a complicating factor.

No final decision on the Degler driveway was made at the meeting. Instead the board directed staff to: confirm the application file is complete; request engineering reviews; coordinate immediately with the Department of State for procedural clarification; and collect any additional data the DEC or Corps require before the board issues a formal consistency recommendation.

Votes at a glance A procedural motion to approve the board's minutes was made and carried by voice vote at the start of the meeting (no individual mover or seconder was recorded in the transcript).