Loading...
005 / r "5.' PAGGI, MARTIN & DEL BENE LLP Consulting Engineers & Land Suroeyors Do05 54-56 Main Street Poughkeepsie, New York 12601 914-471-7898 914-471-0905 (FAX) February 4, 2000 Town Board Town of Wappinger P.O. Box 324 Wappingers Falls, New York 12590 RSC~/II: FeD 0 ~D S(,qIN 8 1000 rOI.1'; 8No~ Cl.~J( 'OS/v Attention: Constance O. Smith Reference: Draft Environmental Impact Statement for Wappingers Central School District New Bus Garage Dear Supervisor Smith & Board Members: I am in receipt of above Draft Environmental Impact Statement prepared by Chazen Companies for the Wappingers Central School District for the New Bus Garage and Main Transportation Facility located adjecient to the existing Wappingers Junior High School. The document is dated January, 2000. I have reviewed the Draft Environmental Impact Statement and have concluded the following: 1. SOIL: The document states that the existing soils in the area are Dutchess Cardigan Complex. They retrieved this information from the Soil Survey Users Guide prepared by Dutchess County, which lists the soils as generally being well drained. From our practical experience in the area, this is not a true statement. Soils in the area are generally heavy clay, and not well drained. 2. STORM WA TER: The document states that there is existing storm water management system which includes both retention and control devices. Where and what do they actually consists of? 3. MAPLE A VENUE: The document refers to Maple Avenue in the Village of Wappingeres Falls, in many instances, the correct name for the road is Maple Street. Joseph E. Paggi, Jr., P.E. Ernst Martin, Jr., P.E., L.S. Charles R. Del Bene, Jr., P.E. Constance O. Smith -2- Re: Draft Impact Environmental Statement February 4, 2000 4. WA TER SUPPL Y: With respect to water supply, there is an existing Water Supply Permit, which allows the sale of water from the Village of Wappingers Falls Water Distribution System to the out of Village user being the Junior High School. The Department of Environmental Conservation should be contacted to see if this needs to be amended. As a corollary to this, there is an existing reduced pressure backflow preventor on site. That was installed in the late 1980's or early 1990's. The maintenance record of this device should be looked at to ensure that it is in good working order. Also, the Dutchess County Health Department should be contacted to insure that it is being operated properly. As the Bus Facility is proposed to be expanded, the continued safe operation of this device is essential. 5. SANITARY SEWER: With respect to sanitary sewer, the document states on page 1 3 that 2.4 m.g.d. of flow has been allocated to the Town of Wappinger. This is not true. This is the total flow of the plant. Currently 1.0 m.g.d. is the flow allocated to the Town of Wappinger. (At the present time, this is being upgraded to 1.375 m.g.d.). 6. DRAINAGE: With respect to drainage, we question whether the existing storm drains that are referenced in the document, drain to Maple Street or the area generally west of the site. Similarly, where would the new storm drains dump into? An overall storm water management plan really should be done to accurately access the impacts. 7. POPULA TION: The document states 1990 population in the School District was approximately 22,000. This would appear to be the actual population of the Town of Wappinger alone. The document should be clarified. 8. AIR QUALITY: With respect to air quality, the document states that the maximum idling time for a diesel engine is 5 minutes, we question whether this is practical even with the proposed block heaters. Constance O. Smith -3- Re: Draft Impact Environmental Statement February 4, 2000 9. WA TER: The additional flows are estimated at approximately 600 g.p.d.. This is based on existing flows of 1,800 g.p.d. and proposed total flows of 2,400g.p.d.. We question what the current existing usage is for the complex. Knowing that we would be able to put the proposed increase in perspective. The document also states that there will be bus washing on site with a recycle system. We question how effective and efficient this recycle system is. We also question where does the waste water from the wash system go to. 10.RUN-OFF: With respect to newly created run-off from the site, there is proposed approximately 3 acres of new paving plus a proposed building. How will the existing storm water management system be modified ( and actually what is it, currently?) to handle the proposed new run-off? 11. WETLANDS: We question whether there are any existing wetlands, whether Federal. State, on, or adjacent to the site. As a corollary to this, are there any existing flood plains on or adjacent to the site? These areas should be identified with respect to the potential effect to the new construction. 12. TRAFFIC: We are assuming that F.P. Clarke & Associates is reviewing the traffic study that was prepared for the proposal, and have not included any comments on that. If you have any questions or comments, please do not hesitate to contact this office.