Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the River Corridor SiteB topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
River‑corridor rules shrink disposal options; Task Force debates whether Site B parking would cost 10,000 gpd of capacity
Summary
Task Force members heard that drip dispersal would generally be disallowed in the river corridor, D&K provided desktop capacity estimates outside the corridor, and DEC staff said Site B cannot simultaneously serve as a disposal field and parking without design changes. Chair Erik Johnson warned losing Site B could forfeit about 10,000 gpd of capacity.
Task Force members on May 14 were told that locating a drip dispersal disposal field inside Jericho’s river corridor is generally not permitted, narrowing the sites available for a potential community wastewater system.
Kate McCarthy said DuBois & King and Department of Environmental Conservation staff had advised that a drip dispersal system would not be allowed in the river corridor except under very limited circumstances. D&K supplied a desktop estimate of groundwater flow to approximate what could be done outside the corridor, giving the Task Force a near‑term basis to evaluate potential service areas while additional field testing is pending.
The group then discussed Site B at Browns River Middle School, which town staff consider important for school access. Achouak Arfaoui said her office reviewed the idea of co‑locating parking and a leach field using a Geomat and concluded there must be separation between the leach field and parking; as a result the site could not function as a disposal site and temporary parking at the same time. Achouak said the office had not previously realized how important Site B’s potential capacity was to the project and that she would discuss it further with her colleagues.
Erik Johnson said Site B is used only occasionally for parking and argued the DEC should reconsider the dual‑use prohibition, noting the site “could provide 10,000 gpd of capacity” in the Task Force’s estimate. Peter Booth emphasized that only cars can access the area and that larger trucks would not be able to drive onto the site.
Lynnette Claudon noted that Act 250 considerations and other permitting steps may apply; the group observed that other villages have sought Jurisdictional Opinions from District Environmental Commissions during PER completion. The Task Force asked DuBois & King and DEC to continue refining siting options and to document technical constraints so the group can weigh trade‑offs as it identifies a preferred alternative.
The Task Force did not adopt a preferred alternative at the meeting; members agreed to continue technical review, including any follow‑up site visits or meetings to better convey equipment access and historic parking needs.
