Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Wetlands And Drainage topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Neighbors urge delay on 239 Washington land‑disturbance permit over wetland and flooding concerns; board asks for revised SWIP and tree inventory
Summary
Residents told the planning board the proposed disturbance at 239 Washington/West would increase flooding, remove a critical buffer and might fall under incoming state wetland rules; the board requested a revised SWIP, a tree inventory and a scaled‑down site plan option and left the determination pending those materials.
Neighbors and board members spent the bulk of the meeting debating a land‑disturbance permit for a privately owned parcel at 239 Washington/West. Applicant Stephanie Ferradino and her team told the board they had cut the originally proposed clearing from 6.3 acres to about 2.6 acres and would fill an isolated wetland of roughly 0.45 acres; she emphasized the land‑disturbance application is authorized under the UDO and that pending statewide wetland rule changes do not retroactively prevent processing of an application filed in May 2023.
Multiple residents pressed the board to delay action until new state rules were in effect or until the DEC had issued a jurisdictional determination. “This revealed to me the priority: make a quick sale once they have marketable land,” said a resident, who urged the board to protect the community’s flood control and ecological functions. Several neighbors reported recurring yard and basement flooding and cited the site’s shallow bedrock, high groundwater and prior fill as reasons to require deeper study.
Board engineers and members questioned whether filling the small wetland and adding a swale would simply expedite runoff to the existing outlet rather than replace the wetland’s storage volume. James (city engineering staff) and the applicant’s engineer exchanged calculations showing design flows for 1‑, 10‑ and 100‑year storms; the applicant said the revised SWIP meets DC (design criteria) requirements but acknowledged the SWIP document submitted to staff lacked some of the detailed calculations board members asked to see.
Rather than issue a final determination, the board asked the applicant to provide: a revised SWIP that board members can review (and a DPW memo), a tree inventory identifying 'significant trees' as defined in the UDO (species and caliper), a minimized/scale‑down option showing the smallest tree removal footprint to fill the wetland and a short hydrology analysis demonstrating how basin volume and conveyance will change. Chair summarized the requests as the three items the board must have before considering a declaration. The board did not vote on the permit and left the matter pending receipt of those materials.
Why it matters: the decision could change local flood behavior and neighborhood character; neighbors asked the board to weigh wetland function, flood storage volume and long‑term community impacts before authorizing the disturbance.
