[{"_1":2,"_111":-5,"_112":-5},"loaderData",{"_3":4,"_26":27},"root",{"_5":6,"_17":10,"_18":19,"_20":21,"_22":10,"_23":-5,"_24":-5,"_25":10},"user",{"_7":8,"_9":10,"_11":10,"_12":-5,"_13":-5,"_14":15,"_16":-5},"roles",[],"isAuthenticated",false,"isPremium","planName","subscriptionStatus","featureFlags",{},"insightsBudget","isDevelopmentHost","userPreferences",{},"recaptchaSiteKey","6LcvOJcUAAAAAHsB-gPGfGktcRlKpH7OTIU_dMTD","isImpersonating","impersonation","affiliateStatus","isFreedomPortal","routes/v2/article/layout",{"_28":29,"_30":31},"notFound",true,"relatedArticles",[32,75,87,99],{"_33":34,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":40,"_41":42,"_43":44,"_45":46,"_47":48,"_49":50,"_51":52,"_53":54,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":60,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":66,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},"mediaId",6607948,"mediaKeyId","2945478-6dd12e94407cdf43ec5cba59d2fae022","parentId",2945478,"title","Proposal for Harley Road battery storage draws safety questions from Planning Board","audioSeconds",1233,"startMs",8941000,"endMs",10174000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=2945478-6dd12e94407cdf43ec5cba59d2fae022&start=8941&end=10174","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2945478-6dd12e94407cdf43ec5cba59d2fae022/thumbnail_8941000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6607948/Goshen/Orange-County/New-York/Proposal-for-Harley-Road-battery-storage-draws-safety-questions-from-Planning-Board","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6607948-cc07923e6fe46fece2696f8e00cd2339/orig.mp4?Expires=1771176752&Signature=ngUe8Vw577mznV8iuGQldRrgX~IwdGowvszkYNIwPHxr3g2YfjrfzzfbvIArXe2~K-82xkhyPCM01Ihw5T53Y1lycC3S5IAGN7IH9Znubp92WuPkMuffrW4QbUTAJz1zlyMU7V6QWCSV8IA2Jeo7wVbFV1KczndbAaiw6hl4Afpeu5QR7m8JOdHzSh6pkIlypv34PPas2ymPL8zVJkK48YgwiY7jCN1IC8r3cZrPwYI~WhTbcUYUWym2EriHlYFoX7UY7HCagAFQ1dzz4XVQgQ8u9RJNUym5v8-FRSEF9LDiOzVQx5hBveoaAfvZogWWjAUc8oOif~i858QglbJSXw__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","City of Goshen, NY","date","2025-04-10T08:19:43.797Z","article","The Goshen Planning Board reviewed preliminary materials for a proposed battery energy storage facility on Harley Road and voiced caution about siting, safety and emergency preparedness given recent high‑profile battery-storage fires in the region.

Planning Board members said the technology is evolving and some members argued the local risks — notably the difficulty fighting thermal-runaway fires at large lithium-ion installations — were not yet sufficiently understood to place a facility near densely used sites. Board members highlighted proximate community assets including a regional entertainment venue and the county jail and asked for a written emergency-response and evacuation plan that addresses potential off‑site impacts.

Speakers asked for engagement with local fire and emergency services to confirm the town’s ability to respond and to identify responsibility for cleanup and long‑term costs in the event of a catastrophic failure. The board discussed whether battery storage is most appropriately sited near the end user or at remote, nonresidential locations; one participant noted utility representatives have said end-user‑adjacent siting is preferred, not necessarily Harley Road.

The Planning Board did not approve any permit or take a vote on the project. Members asked the applicant to provide detailed safety and monitoring plans, manufacturer fire‑suppression and venting information, an emergency-response protocol drafted with the local fire department, and a description of liability and remediation funding in case of a major event.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","ERB Meeting. April 9, 2025.","oneSentenceSummary","The Planning Board discussed a proposed battery energy storage system on Harley Road and several members expressed safety and evacuation concerns after recent high‑profile battery fires elsewhere; the board asked the applicant to show detailed emergency response plans and to meet with local fire officials.","taxTitle","Goshen, Orange County, New York","taxId",55277,"location","headline","","shortSummary",{"_33":76,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":77,"_41":78,"_43":79,"_45":80,"_47":81,"_49":82,"_51":83,"_53":84,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":85,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":86,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6607953,"Planning Board asks where to take photos as Millburn solar farm developers prepare visual-impact study",775,4267000,5042000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2945478-6dd12e94407cdf43ec5cba59d2fae022&start=4267&end=5042","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2945478-6dd12e94407cdf43ec5cba59d2fae022/thumbnail_4267000.jpg","/articles/6607953/Goshen/Orange-County/New-York/Planning-Board-asks-where-to-take-photos-as-Millburn-solar-farm-developers-prepare-visual-impact-study","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6607953-ca78127ce7cc9e63b44038a5b976ca93/orig.mp4?Expires=1771176752&Signature=TMiuHp5CAit3MFj9CLafModWRlZsQUFDxoRw2eYdHa~4YimJZN33v0lQVkUez8r~fpPixU5G6pVUS1I-TopgxMCXS3EeLHVVM5cWeP1OokiOxtjWIwqayJzSFtVGT84FuLJRFS-lvg1CeAVsn0AB0WAMUWzKTa00QS37hAEgyPXgFJfeusPQ6IBZ57dXl4C-jEo8jg2WWRKke4zb9pQ0yeev2YjSl85s~F4lxOtLVDODxFdeUsE8riOYdbE6LIkSKxP~2H8FG7673MYKeBndH8q-Zt5y6LN-UTeJohKXzdOZAiA3c~nNBYvrdfWy4eEAX6~he4LBUk61ZsqQaWx0mQ__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The Planning Board reviewed preliminary materials for a proposed solar array near Millburn and asked the applicant to provide visual impact and glare studies from a set of board-specified vantage points including Millburn Road, Moonlight Trail, Vertree and Northgate.

Board members and staff noted that several houses on Millburn Road and Moonlight Trail, and a cluster of residences up on Northgate, could have direct lines of sight to the proposed array. Members asked the applicant to photograph and model views from specific addresses referenced during the meeting — examples included houses on Millburn and Moonlight Trail — and to include cross‑sections and simulated visualizations showing how the array would appear from each vantage point.

Members also discussed glare and the potential for reflected light to affect nearby properties. The board asked that the visual-impact study consider seasonal sun angles and late-day reflections and to include a discussion of any screening or vegetative buffer proposals. One member suggested adding a view from the elevated Northgate neighborhood because of elevated sight lines.

No decision was made; the board instructed staff and the applicant to coordinate on a list of photo‑viewpoint coordinates and to return with a complete visual-impact package that includes photographic viewpoints, visual simulations and a glare assessment.","Members requested specific photo-viewpoint locations for the visual-impact and glare study for a proposed solar array that would adjoin Millburn, Moonlight Trail and Northgate-area homes, and asked developers to include viewpoints from adjacent roads and elevated neighborhoods.",{"_33":88,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":89,"_41":90,"_43":91,"_45":92,"_47":93,"_49":94,"_51":95,"_53":96,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":97,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":98,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6607958,"Planning Board presses IWS over stormwater contamination and EPA consent decree during expansion review",2476,5194000,7670000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2945478-6dd12e94407cdf43ec5cba59d2fae022&start=5194&end=7670","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2945478-6dd12e94407cdf43ec5cba59d2fae022/thumbnail_5194000.jpg","/articles/6607958/Goshen/Orange-County/New-York/Planning-Board-presses-IWS-over-stormwater-contamination-and-EPA-consent-decree-during-expansion-review","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6607958-7ae70dbed051c3650c67ea99ef8ff95f/orig.mp4?Expires=1771176752&Signature=FW7Q3EE0uoDtcLRqtkf366i6PKsyzIYy~6r3H1fNhrCQVnh6O0txBatypIH6fUWdgbOwER1xgXAW7apLtiduErLZoO61~axmeDgXGuumDF5FIsEoeBoWjD5PyF5CX4n00OFwvO0Rc62-qm5efVPJH4V2dueM-gnEFTKWqev9gzlHenxEpD3sb9MSq7bkkvl6JENijILH4Lf1-lf5rvhoo5yw1W7Z8JZGHtaEW-mWy75MMwmyiW2vX~6svIY5Jjx5egOIngsnDQfNOftaBcviqpcMw2w0W57ibIPwEBD3HVLzY~9i8E32PLVVwta5yJZuIdRuFtu8HRt~9XKgiCzLzQ__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The Goshen Planning Board spent substantial time reviewing a draft scoping document for a proposed expansion at an IWS waste-handling facility and repeatedly flagged an existing environmental compliance problem flagged by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.

Board members said they understood the EPA had issued a notice and reached a consent agreement requiring IWS to address contaminated stormwater leaving the site. Members told the applicant the consent-decree obligations should be documented and addressed as part of any town-level approvals for new construction or increased municipal solid waste throughput.

Planning participants emphasized two separate but related issues: (1) the town’s immediate concern about contaminated leachate and stormwater that currently flows off the site and onto neighboring properties and into a downstream ditch that reaches the Walker River; and (2) how excavation required for the proposed expansion would disturb and potentially export soils that might themselves be contaminated.

Board members repeatedly asked that the scoping document require the applicant to: identify any EPA and DEC orders or consent decrees affecting the site; provide third-party laboratory testing of soils and stormwater with complete chain-of-custody documentation and valid hold times; disclose destinations for any soils exported from the site; and describe proposed measures to stop contaminated runoff from leaving the property immediately, not as a future mitigation step.

Several members criticized earlier analytical results the applicant provided. The board noted samples were submitted to labs with improper holding times and headspace in sample bottles — conditions that can invalidate results — and asked that future testing be performed and submitted using recognized protocols and a third-party laboratory, with costs billed to the applicant as part of review expenses.

Members also requested that the scoping document consider worker and public health during construction and excavation: the board asked for pre‑excavation borings to characterize contaminants, off‑site disposal plans if soils exceed hazardous thresholds, and a construction‑phase health and safety plan that specifies personal protective equipment and dust-control measures for laborers and neighbors.

Planning Board members asked staff to provide the EPA consent-decree documents to the board and directed the applicant to address the consent-decree obligations before the Planning Board would consider permit approvals for the expansion. The board did not vote at the meeting but instructed staff to share the EPA documents with board members and to circulate more complete testing and mitigation proposals from the applicant.","The Planning Board reviewed a scoping document for an IWS facility expansion and repeatedly urged the company to address an EPA consent decree and longstanding stormwater runoff that board members say is contaminating adjacent property and surface water; members also asked for independent testing and clear plans for excavated soils.",{"_33":100,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":101,"_41":102,"_43":103,"_45":104,"_47":105,"_49":106,"_51":107,"_53":108,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":109,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":110,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6607963,"Goshen planning board raises parking, snow-removal and safety concerns about proposed student-bus depot",1960,392000,2352000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2945478-6dd12e94407cdf43ec5cba59d2fae022&start=392&end=2352","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2945478-6dd12e94407cdf43ec5cba59d2fae022/thumbnail_392000.jpg","/articles/6607963/Goshen/Orange-County/New-York/Goshen-planning-board-raises-parking-snow-removal-and-safety-concerns-about-proposed-student-bus-depot","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6607963-37b52bf4d6b7ace1a36d7002168228ce/orig.mp4?Expires=1771176752&Signature=WBGwnPOOb9~T8a7BHMDJDJJYFkqrbfaMrPPacQVzOuaqn5AKQCLY2W4Av8bgmUbikeNVYcL6IRp9NCCTO8PtXAnPncvk5JNRPPvaLmH9AlFOawqh9Crr78j-xuTvAF1NdzQprdQOFeaIX~wS~9k7Tl2ipLgWJVskdLGHEfmhh~ikwYgClGu4zhVrotj6~3rewlzoLSeV6Bcw14mTviLUtCISCGqiJa7sn3Fv0x03DWSBXnFaX9WKDtNtJIxgIDtb9BpIv4lTz2VgtCG~wLIfhMOePJTBSPFQxGRXeMT4Zjxst9xynsP8WmiJdfJD4JOPP~FedSQozX7oDY9zGaHEDw__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The Goshen Planning Board discussed a proposal to use a property in the town for a student-bus storage and service facility that would stage roughly three dozen buses, with board members focusing on employee parking, snow removal, fuel-tank placement, and emergency access.

Board members said the applicant told the Planning Board the operation staggers buses by departure order and pre-stages vehicles overnight, but members pressed for more detail about how that operating practice would work on the proposed site. Concerns centered on the existing gravel surface on much of the lot, which several members said will not hold line paint or orderly stalls and may rut under repeated heavy truck and bus traffic.

Planning board member Louie said the operator typically “park[s] them in a way that the earliest route goes out first,” intending to pre-stage buses so they leave in order. Louie and others said they remain uncertain how employee cars and drivers will be accommodated: multiple members said they expect spillover parking onto nearby Industrial Drive if on-site stalls are insufficient.

Board members asked for a traffic/turning study at the site entrance where buses would turn right onto the adjacent roadway; several participants noted they had not received a travel or traffic study showing how large buses would use the intersection or whether they would need to occupy multiple lanes to complete turns. One member suggested reworking the paved apron at the driveway or removing a curved curb cut to create more room for turns.

Snow removal and surfacing were a recurring concern. Members repeatedly asked what surface aggregate the applicant will place in high-use areas and whether the pavement section would support emergency apparatus and fuel-delivery trucks without rutting. Several members recommended a higher-spec aggregate or a paved apron near the entrance and fueling area; one engineering comment requested that the applicant show cross-sections for the driveway and the area near the proposed 600-gallon diesel tank described in the plans.

Board members also requested a lighting plan for early-morning and late-night arrivals and departures for worker safety, and asked the applicant to show how emergency vehicles — specifically fire apparatus — would enter and move around the site without getting stuck on soft surfacing. Members noted the applicant had said some buses would be stored indoors, but questioned whether enough vehicles could be accommodated inside the building to reduce outside stacking.

Other issues discussed included a proposed lot-line shift tied to the site plan, potential encroachment of gravel onto the public roadway, and the presence of an existing cell-tower facility and overhead utilities on or near neighboring parcels. The board asked the applicant to demonstrate legal access to rear parcels and to indicate any recorded rights-of-way on the plan.

The Planning Board did not take a vote during the discussion. Board members asked the applicant to provide the missing travel/turning analysis, a lighting plan, clarified surfacing cross-sections and specifications (including load-bearing detail for emergency apparatus), and a clear plan for employee parking to avoid overflow onto Industrial Drive. The item will return to the Planning Board when the applicant submits the requested materials.","Members of the Goshen planning board pressed the applicant for a proposed student-bus storage and service site on details about employee parking, snow removal, fuel storage, roadway turning radii and emergency access after reviewing a site plan that would store about three dozen buses on a gravel lot.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Proposal for Harley Road battery storage draws safety questions from Planning Board

Planning Board asks where to take photos as Millburn solar farm developers prepare visual-impact study

Planning Board presses IWS over stormwater contamination and EPA consent decree during expansion review

Goshen planning board raises parking, snow-removal and safety concerns about proposed student-bus depot