Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use Public Hearing topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Neighbors press Planning Board over proposed contractor's yard at 225 Robinson, raising water, flooding and wash-station concerns
Summary
At a reopened public hearing for a proposed contractor's yard at 225 Robinson, residents and an environmental professional raised concerns about stormwater treatment, oil-water separators, vehicle-wash operations, flood risk and property-value impacts; the board and applicant agreed to revise plans and return in July.
The East Fishkill Planning Board reopened a public hearing on June 16 for a proposal to permit a contractor's yard and vehicle storage at 225 Robinson. Applicant engineers described reconfiguring the storage area toward the property's business-zone corner to increase buffers from residences and said traffic reviewers (HVA) concluded the project did not require a traffic-impact statement.
Brian Stoa of (stated) Dane Tosa Engineering said the applicant submitted an Environmental Assessment Form and the town declared lead agency. He reported worst-case vehicle movements of 189 trips per day (AM/PM combined) but said average days would likely be roughly a third lower; the design would accommodate about 50 stored vehicles or pieces of equipment with a double-gate entrance and backed-in parking layout.
Several neighbors said the project poses water-quality and flooding risks near wells and basements. Doug Welch cited prior local well-contamination incidents and said flooding on the parcel concerned him; other neighbors raised housing-value and noise concerns. Kristen Melendez, who identified herself as trained in geosciences and environmental compliance, urged the board to require a baseline environmental/site-assessment and questioned the need for an on-site vehicle wash station. Melendez also flagged design issues with oil-water separators (she recommended nonconcrete materials, alarm systems and more frequent inspections), requested effluent sampling and proposed that any wash-water discharge be tied into an MS4 or public wastewater system rather than a private separator.
Applicants and consultants responded that stormwater treatment would be handled with catch basins, hydrodynamic separators, vegetated dry swales and design measures from DEC guidance, with underdrains and maintenance requirements to be sized and documented in future submissions. The applicant said plans will be revised to reflect comments and that engineering and DEC compliance details will be provided in subsequent filings.
No final decision was made. The board accepted an update from the applicant and adjourned the public hearing to the July meeting for further review and revised submissions.
