Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Facilities Planning topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Residents press trustees to halt DPW move to Irvington Woods area, citing watershed and safety risks
Summary
Dozens of residents urged trustees during public comment to halt proposals that would relocate the Department of Public Works near the Irvington Reservoir and Irvington Woods, raising concerns about watershed protections, stormwater and lead runoff, traffic safety and insufficient environmental review; trustees said no decisions have been made and further studies are planned.
Dozens of Irvington residents used the board’s public-comment period to press trustees for more analysis before moving the Department of Public Works (DPW) or firehouse into sites adjacent to the Irvington Reservoir and Irvington Woods.
"You would never accept ‘trust me’ in place of a study," said Leon Bridal, who read a letter signed by 35 families arguing that proposals to site a salt storage, fuel tanks and vehicle fleet next to the reservoir conflict with village watershed protections and local zoning. Bridal warned that an environmental review was removed from the consultant contract and said placing industrial uses uphill of the reservoir would put drinking water at risk.
Other residents raised safety and quality-of-life concerns. Josh Nathan, who identified himself as an East Irvington resident, cited blind curves and longstanding hazard signage on Harriman Road and said placing large municipal vehicles in that corridor would endanger cyclists, residents and DPW staff. Andrew Cleary, speaking for a Field Point neighborhood, and several other speakers urged the village to remove particular sites from consideration and to provide more and better-targeted outreach to affected homeowners.
Trustees repeatedly told speakers they have not made any decisions. Chair David said the board and the consultants have the same unanswered questions residents raised — stormwater drainage, salt containment, lead contamination and full cost estimates — and that the facilities planning process is only at its beginning. The board approved a separate contract at the meeting for an independent fiscal analysis intended to help quantify tax and budget impacts of future options.
Several commenters also flagged process concerns: they said certain environmental review work was excluded from the consultant contract and that affected homeowners sometimes learned of site lists only casually (for example, through HOA communications). Residents asked the board to ensure environmental assessments and alternative-site evaluations are completed before preferred directions are selected.
The board said consultants will deliver a report in September and that the village will undertake further studies, including stormwater and fiscal analyses, before any site decisions. No trustee vote to relocate facilities occurred at the meeting.
