Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Stormwater Discharge topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Valley Stream trustees debate permitting private groundwater discharge at 181 Franklin
Summary
Village building staff told trustees that DEC testing found groundwater from a commercial site's parking‑garage pits free of contaminants; trustees debated whether to permit continued discharge under an annual‑testing permit or require the owner to mitigate on private property because of precedent and liability concerns.
Building‑department staff told the Valley Stream Board of Trustees that tests ordered with New York State Department of Environmental Conservation oversight found water discharging from private groundwater pits at 181 Franklin free of contaminants permitted for stormwater discharge, and presented two paths for the board to consider: authorize a formal permit with monitoring and fees, or require the building owner to find an on‑site mitigation solution off the village system.
The board heard that the outfall from five pits in the building’s parking area flows into a village stormwater basin on South Franklin. "The water was found to be safe and uh it's free of contaminants that is permissible to discharge into a stormwater system," a building‑department staff member said. Staff said the village code currently provides a path to permit such discharges but that this would be the first time the board and village clerk would grant that permit, so the board could set conditions — including annual testing, inspection rights and fees.
Trustees repeatedly raised concerns about precedent and potential liability if the village legitimizes ongoing discharges. Several members cited a previous local development that required extensive stormwater mitigation and warned that formalizing a permit could invite similar requests from other properties. Board members discussed whether any costs associated with ongoing testing and oversight should be borne entirely by the owner, and whether the village should require the owner to route discharges to mitigation on adjacent private property instead.
Staff told trustees DEC had recommended routine checks and provided suggested parameters for an approval, including testing frequency and maintenance requirements. The building‑department representative said staff would work with the owner to explore on‑site mitigation options and, if the board preferred, draft a permit framework with associated fees and reporting requirements for future review.
Trustees directed staff to prepare file materials and a letter to the building owner describing the village's options and to return with recommended permit language and fee suggestions. A motion was recorded as made by Trustee Sarelli and seconded; the transcript does not capture the motion text or a final recorded outcome.
The matter will return to the board after staff brings back permit language, testing protocols and cost/fee proposals for the trustees' consideration.
