Loading...
040 - .. 6'f /G) ~j/ .. PAGGI&MARTIN Consulting Engineers & Land Surveyors o D 54-56 Main Street Poughkeepsie, New York 12601 914-471-7898 914-471-0905 (FAX) ASCSII'/€D /'fAr 2 ~~/tv~ 1 1991 1"o~ Slvo"" 'Ii C~'{)~N May 19,1997 Town Board Town of Wappinger P.O. Box 324 Wappinger Falls, New York 12590 Constance O. Smith, Supervisor Volvo of Wappinger Down Stream Drainage Fees Dear Board Members: Attention: Reference: At the April 1997 Board meeting, we were instructed to review correspondence from Jack Railing's office dated April 21, 1997 to the Town Board regarding payment of the down stream drainage fees for the Volvo of Wappinger project located on Route 9. I am in receipt of the correspondence and have reviewed the same, and offer the following: 1. It has been the policy of the Planning Board for many years and the position of this office, that any development adopt an overall stormwater management plan. This stormwater management plan should include how the Applicant proposes to handle any increase in peak rate of runoff due to the proposed development. In addition, this plan should include how the Applicant proposes to handle the pollutants and particulate matter that would be in this runoff. Normally, this is accomplished through construction of a series of detention/retention basins that would reduce the post- development flows to pre-development flows, and would be able to settle out the particulate matter that occurs in the runoff from the first Y:z" of rainfall. We have adopted this policy and advise that it is based on current engineering standards and recommended by the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation in their guidelines. It should also be noted that this policy is standard throughout the municipalities in Dutchess County, and is not unique to Wappinger. Joseph E. Paggi. Jr., P.E. @ prmll!d on rl!cycll!d papl!r Ernst Martin,Jr., P.E., L.S. ~- Constance O. Smith Town Board Re: Volvo of Wappinger - 2 - May 1 9, 1 997 It is my opinion that the Applicant has done nothing more that would be required of any other applicant. The development of the site would include stormwater runoff and the final plan is designed to address this increase. 2. Given the above, it would be my opinion that the decision to waive the down stream drainage fee for the project is a decision that should be made by the Board. 3. During the review, our office had no formal knowledge of New York State Department of Transportation acceptance of the original plan. However, it can be stated if, in fact, an approval was received, it would have had no bearing on our review comments. Our review comments would have been consistent with what was done. 4. During the review process, one of our requirements was to eliminate the potential of any flooding on the properties immediately to the south of this project. This requirement is consistent with any other site plan review that we do, and is a logical and rational request and one that we would make of any Applicant, (i.e. that they not worsen an already existing problem). Generally, we normally ask that a Developer try to better an existing inadequate drainage condition not worsen it. 5. During the site plan review, we ask the Developer's Engineer to address water quality issues. It is our policy to try to better the quality of the storm water runoff from commercial and residential sites through the use of retention facilities. It is our long term goal to reduce the amount of particulate matter and contaminants that are delivered to the stream during a rainfall event. 6. The Engineer for the project has submitted for the Town's review a list of the costs that they felt they have and will incur due to the drainage design. I have not analyzed them, however, I would advise that the numbers appear to reflect a conservative estimate of the value of the work that is necessary to implement an overall storm water management plan for a commercial site of approximately 3-5 acres. ~ Constance o. Smith Town Board Re: Volvo of Wappinger - 3 - May 19, 1997 In summary, it is my judgement that the drainage requirements for this project are no different than the drainage requirements for any other project that we review for the Town, and are consistent with generally accepted design standards and current recommendations by the regulatory agencies. We would also advise that the Attorney should offer an opinion regarding the payment of this fee and the general philosophy of impact fees. If there are any questions or comments, please do not hesitate to contact this office. ;P~?Kt@ Joseph E. Paggi, Jr., P.E. JEP:law cc: Hon. June Visconti, Councilperson Hon. Vincent Bettina, Councilperson Hon. Joseph Ruggiero, Councilperson Hon. Robert Valdati, Councilperson Albert P. Roberts, Esq. Elaine Snowden