Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Subdivision Drainage topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Planning Board closes Poppy Lane hearing after neighbors and engineers press for drainage fixes
Summary
The Planning Board closed the public hearing on the Poppy Lane three‑lot subdivision after engineers and nearby residents raised questions about stormwater tie‑ins, an existing 36‑inch pipe, and the need for additional survey work and financial security for off‑site drainage improvements. The applicant waived the 62‑day decision timeline to allow more design work.
The Town of Newburgh Planning Board closed the public hearing on the Poppy Lane three‑lot subdivision April 16, after engineers and a nearby property owner urged the applicant to provide additional drainage documentation and design revisions.
Ross Winglovitz of Engineering & Surveying Properties said the amended subdivision revises road grade and drainage alignment but does not create new lots. He described a proposed closed drainage system that would collect runoff along the new road, carry it beneath Lester Clark Road and discharge near an existing 36‑inch pipe that also receives flow from Frozen Ridge Road. Winglovitz said the project will upgrade an existing 15‑inch pipe to a 24‑inch pipe to tie into the larger conveyance.
Pat Hines of MHE, the town engineering consultant, said field observations show an existing 15‑inch pipe appears to be poorly buried and separated in places, and that installing a 24‑inch pipe at the proposed location will probably require substantial fill and additional profile information to assure adequate burial depth. Hines said the town found drainage easements on record but asked the applicant to provide more survey information and drainage profiles so the Board can understand impacts to the easement and determine how much fill would be required.
A neighboring property owner who identified himself as Rob and said he represents the owner of 146 Lester Clark Road urged the Board to require fuller documentation in the public record before plan endorsement. Rob told the Board the discharge location and downstream flow path should be clearly defined relative to property boundaries and mapped wetlands, and he cited an outlet velocity of “approximately 16.7 feet per second” as a design concern. He asked the Board to confirm DEC construction permit coverage and to require financial security for off‑site drainage work.
Winglovitz said the easement and prior approvals are on record and that the proposed discharge point falls at or near an existing point of outfall. Hines reiterated that a New York State DEC construction stormwater permit will be required prior to plan stamping and that a bond or other financial security will be required before offsite improvements are approved. He also recommended design revisions to show energy dissipation and appropriate erosion control at the proposed outfall.
Planning Board attorney Dominic Cordisco advised it would be prudent to close the public hearing and continue technical review. The Board voted unanimously to close the hearing (motion by John A. Ward; second by Kenneth Mennerich). Winglovitz agreed to waive the 62‑day decision timeline to allow the Board time to review additional material.
Next steps: the applicant will supply the additional survey and profile information, design revisions showing burial depth and outfall treatment, and evidence of DEC permit coverage; staff will continue their technical review before the Board makes a decision.
