Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Fedex Site Plan topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
FedEx revised Phase 2A plan emphasizes parking and stormwater reductions; wetlands work deferred to Phase 2B
Summary
Project engineers told the Orangetown Planning Board the PB26-08 revision for the FedEx site at 9 Al Foxy Way reduces impervious area and employee parking (from the 2010 approvals) and separates Phase 2 into 2A (parking/circulation/stormwater upgrades) and 2B (work near wetlands) to allow DEC permitting; the board continued the matter pending agency approvals and final comment responses.
The Orangetown Planning Board heard a detailed presentation on PB26-08, a revised Phase 2 for the FedEx facility at 9 Al Foxy Way, and agreed to continue the application while staff and the applicant resolve outstanding technical comments and secure required agency permits. Steve Rabel introduced the project’s history, noting approvals originally issued in 2011, then turned the presentation to the signing engineer, John Romeo.
Romeo told the board the applicants split Phase 2 into subphases because some proposed work is within 100 feet of a wetland and requires DEC review. He said Phase 2A — the matter before the board — contains no work inside the wetland buffer and is designed to be self‑supporting so delays to Phase 2B do not block Phase 2A’s improvements. Romeo said the proposal reduces total impervious coverage to about 11.56 acres versus 14.82 acres in the 2010 approvals, and reduces employee parking from the previously approved figure (transcript: 398) to 215 spaces under the current plan.
The project team described new on‑site stormwater measures (infiltration, filtration and bioretention practices) and provided discharge estimates for localized storm events, including a reported zero flow in a one‑year event, 0.6 cubic feet per second for a 10‑year event and 72 cfs for a 100‑year event at a specific discharge point. The team said it has a neighbor letter acknowledging the proposed northern discharge and is coordinating with town engineer Bruce Peters to finalize details. Romeo said some review comments were delivered to the applicant late in the review cycle and a formal comment‑response letter was not yet available.
Board members pressed the applicant on why parking counts were reduced and whether permanent trailer parking would be affected. The applicant said trailer parking shown at 41 feet from the property line is permanent trailer storage and that the reduction reflects operational needs at the facility. Several reviewers noted pending agency actions — including county drainage permits and DEC permitting for nearby wetlands — and the board requested the applicant return with a full comment‑response package and outstanding technical items addressed. The board agreed to continue the application and revisit Phase 2B in two weeks as the project proceeds through state and county review.
