[{"_1":2,"_87":-5,"_88":-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],{"_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",6514895,"mediaKeyId","5022715-422c6d492f3e27ac271162074e09a0d0","parentId",5022715,"title","Developer seeks subdivision and variances for two 5 MW battery storage systems at 114 Hartley Road","audioSeconds",2119,"startMs",2375000,"endMs",4494000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=5022715-422c6d492f3e27ac271162074e09a0d0&start=2375&end=4494","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5022715-422c6d492f3e27ac271162074e09a0d0/thumbnail_2375000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6514895/Goshen/Orange-County/New-York/Developer-seeks-subdivision-and-variances-for-two-5-MW-battery-storage-systems-at-114-Hartley-Road","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6514895-d95ab2736c60ba47c2b8c9bb065b6bc0/orig.mp4?Expires=1771151562&Signature=G-Xi~vO7QgSDaWdZEhzTI9sX91wVyjzNKcXmh0zlAbbXjoI56EPnAoaoPDnQrEIsIj2fkhDwezLNEKYV3Y5607~flf4nHQu-5CX0vXKI5ErFH1oRLk6MJ7OWPaghFKtKKD~l--7-yL0F1efuokFucTJCqqLsuevop-NVyGTK9G5ulvxpvFwj0m-OO9h8uZQpeVQoHvoo32oqfLu7DNp2DtWnLk77J8dsWZr7PstNsfWzkWF2BDdcLE2E1fzbpz8o6HMLvLXexSDXxbjlYFpLQqYkm3NQhlZxqMehj6ZkB-W5w4FB8G8AeIa9oYR4ARFhfIjliNhcM6B9~XYh74bekQ__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","City of Goshen, NY","date","2025-06-18T12:58:16Z","article","The Town of Goshen heard an initial application to subdivide a 31.2‑acre parcel at 114 Hartley Road and to install two battery energy storage systems (BESS). Applicants said each system would be rated at 5 megawatts AC and would be sited in the town’s Battery Storage Overlay District; because Orange and Rockland requires a separate tax identification number for each system, the applicant seeks subdivision approval and several internal setback variances to create two new lots of just over one acre each.

Alclad, attorney for the applicant, told the board the parent parcel is used by TAM Enterprises, a construction and materials company, and the battery systems would be placed behind existing buildings with access from Harvey Road. “They’re each gonna be 5 megawatts AC,” Alclad said, describing the project as a leasehold development that requires separate tax IDs to receive payment from the utility.

Engineer representatives from Creighton Manning and developer Aaron Nolan of New Leaf Energy described site constraints that led to variance requests, including existing gravel storage, a septic leach field and a vegetated swale along the proposed lot edge. The applicants said the systems are relatively compact — roughly 10,000 to 15,000 square feet per system — but could not be located on separate one‑acre parcels without creating internal setback issues given existing site features.

Board members and staff focused on three technical issues: whether the subdivision line could be drawn to reduce the number or magnitude of variances, stormwater and drainage impacts, and fire‑safety/service access. Several planning board members suggested the applicants examine alternate lot lines that might eliminate some variances by incorporating an existing vegetated swale or other nonusable areas into the new lots. The applicants agreed to evaluate alternate lot‑line configurations and discuss with the property owner whether the move would be practicable given existing access, septic and storage operations.

On stormwater, the applicants said the project falls near the one‑acre disturbance threshold for DEC review and that the planning board will require a full stormwater pollution prevention plan (SWPPP/SWIFT) and a hydrologic analysis. The civil engineer told the board the project would result in a net reduction of paved area on the site and that post‑construction runoff is intended to be less than pre‑development runoff. The town’s building inspector and planning staff said they would expect a full SWPPP and town‑engineer review before any vote.

Applicants described operational and safety protocols for the lithium‑ion battery systems and said they had engaged the fire department for outreach and pre‑application safety discussions. The developer said the systems would primarily discharge during summer peak events and estimated, for context, that each system could provide power equivalent to serving “up to 5,000 homes” for a roughly four‑hour window when active; applicants said the systems will be charged off‑peak and dispatched to reduce summer peak demand. The applicant indicated the facility would be unmanned and would have no onsite water demand.

No final vote was taken by the town board at this meeting. The planning board noted the application is subject to coordinated review and that the planning board will conduct a full technical review; members discussed a tentative July 1 meeting for further consideration and suggested the possibility of a joint hearing with the town board and planning board. The applicants agreed to supply additional materials, including full grading, erosion‑control, stormwater and lot‑line alternatives, before the next hearing.

","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","Zoning Board Meeting. June 17, 2025.","oneSentenceSummary","Applicants proposed two battery energy storage systems on a 31.2‑acre parcel and sought subdivision and internal setback variances so each system could obtain a separate tax ID; board requested additional engineering, SWPPP/SWIFT and possible lot‑line adjustments and set follow‑up timing.","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},6514899,"Goshen planning board grants area variance for 6 Gumwood Drive; 8 Gumwood moves forward for review",1804,254000,2058000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=5022715-422c6d492f3e27ac271162074e09a0d0&start=254&end=2058","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5022715-422c6d492f3e27ac271162074e09a0d0/thumbnail_254000.jpg","/articles/6514899/Goshen/Orange-County/New-York/Goshen-planning-board-grants-area-variance-for-6-Gumwood-Drive-8-Gumwood-moves-forward-for-review","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6514899-19707dce7d90ea60b669aedcc70d8842/orig.mp4?Expires=1771151562&Signature=i7xhHTtB9oDObUQoLIDC2BmRqjEvjvECzIvqYwCN~eqWGiXFbBvTiYIC42AiWAwQ8cxwiJvorELDf9iJb5AAQ75ER~-LmDiIggSp2Q20xtbLS4s28zUDNqZ~d21jP132rZj9rHN3L-Wc7ffoP5RSX5tn6NstS7RSndsfJiiXd0yhCRTQol6-xOVmlqu8hol1wZ8oWre~3dVGeh2lkZnpt982PlZ~6U~O7kMCvTd1nkkBGg4LvXFAPd9Vq6351BgpvV-BQayRM4ee0b5nNYIbE-bXDQtYoBcQwedJoifbHDFpa6fyvX0m~PJ~2P1~qjjVlbU5ivIPT~n5jJfAF5yJxw__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The Town of Goshen Planning Board voted to grant an area variance for 6 Gumwood Drive, allowing the applicant to return to the planning board for site‑plan review. The board also took up a related variance request for 8 Gumwood Drive; after discussion the transcript indicates members expressed support and the matter will proceed back to the planning board for engineering and site‑plan review, though a final roll‑call tally for 8 Gumwood was not recorded in the public transcript.

The variance for 6 Gumwood was approved after the board applied the statutory five‑factor test required under local law and state land‑use standards. The board recorded a 3–2 outcome on the 6 Gumwood request after a line‑by‑line consideration of neighborhood character, alternatives, substantiality, environmental impact and whether the difficulty was self‑created.

Applicant counsel Charles (who asked the board to call him Charlie) told the board the two vacant lots at 6 and 8 Gumwood Drive could not be used without relief. “Without this variance, these lots have no value whatsoever,” Charles told the board, saying the lots could only be developed if houses were elevated two feet above the mapped flood elevation and a waiver to the access standard was granted. The applicant also said it had secured a wetlands permit from the DEC to work in the 100‑foot wetland buffer and supplied plot plans showing the houses and driveways would avoid wetlands.

Neighbors raised concerns about flooding and drainage. John Donato, a resident who said he lives at 2 Gunwood Drive, showed photographs of street flooding after a four‑inch rain and asked whether filling or raising lots could push water onto existing yards and basements. “If you raise something, it’s going to push it back, and it’s going to push it back to us,” Donato said. Building inspector Frank told the board that the applicant would need engineering to show the work would not increase flood impacts on neighboring parcels and that any plan would be reviewed by the town’s engineer.

Board members debated precedent and the practical limits of mitigation. Chris Hilly, a longtime Goshen resident, urged the board to deny a variance on precedent grounds, citing a prior case in which the board required a developer to relocate a road to meet town standards. Members noted, however, that previous lot approvals and subdivision history can make individual applications unique and that the planning board review and engineering work would address many technical concerns.

Procedure and next steps were clarified in public. The board closed the public hearing on the Gumwood applications, performed the five‑factor analysis on 6 Gumwood and voted to grant the variance. The applicant was reminded that the variance does not constitute site‑plan approval; the applicant must return to the planning board for engineering review, stormwater controls and building permits. The applicant said it would be willing to relinquish lot 10 as a voluntary condition if that influenced the board, but board counsel cautioned that the board could not impose a condition that the applicant itself had not formally accepted; any such stipulation would need to be documented and reviewed.

The meeting record shows the board’s decision allows the applicant to proceed to the next steps of the local approval process, including a detailed engineering review to demonstrate that the proposed houses would not worsen flooding for neighbors. The transcript does not show the planning board’s subsequent engineering review or final site‑plan outcome.

Details from the record that remain to be completed include the engineering reports and any plan modifications required by the planning board, and whether the applicant will formalize the offer regarding Lot 10.

","The Town of Goshen Planning Board voted to grant an area variance for 6 Gumwood Drive after public comment and a five‑factor review; the board also considered a related request for 8 Gumwood Drive and the record shows the application will return to the planning board for site‑plan and engineering review.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Developer seeks subdivision and variances for two 5 MW battery storage systems at 114 Hartley Road

Goshen planning board grants area variance for 6 Gumwood Drive; 8 Gumwood moves forward for review