[{"_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",6510830,"mediaKeyId","5348047-0ae70a304a1a2dda88f6c441eefd3dba","parentId",5348047,"title","Lot reconfiguration at former Aurora/Gotham site raises private-road maintenance and cell-tower questions","audioSeconds",298,"startMs",1188000,"endMs",1486000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=5348047-0ae70a304a1a2dda88f6c441eefd3dba&start=1188&end=1486","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5348047-0ae70a304a1a2dda88f6c441eefd3dba/thumbnail_1188000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6510830/Goshen/Orange-County/New-York/Lot-reconfiguration-at-former-AuroraGotham-site-raises-private-road-maintenance-and-cell-tower-questions","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6510830-2d889d3d40caf0cb927b8c962c2d134b/orig.mp4?Expires=1771091539&Signature=nCTTz0UWXReVmYXNzuJ8Pt0~W41iR9ANnHfelWrZXCaqszA-g2jx6AjXPckbSnVfJX1UHQsDnpBLLLwIndlfmxfJPd1BPSUUCu5Foz~Hc60iNPpH3S0NDLBK5cnFSUaoicT4Rt01zRrbM~hIDgRP0~bVANLHPov~lO38yw7x5z~FiFdmw3CY8~LF7s34Jy5Z~b0buE~E~-YU~-EMUjwOpTRy6SSNhyEZ6SPHImV7bQ2Mqup~opPjFQBQ~CvXH6CeXTfo52N4Rs7J3R8puuEF8omLYUNRvcFBmQDoDzJhrInNerIKEiWzIP0QZF0WUkbaD7L5IQm4tq6jW63kgNrR~Q__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","City of Goshen, NY","date","2025-07-10T11:50:21Z","article","Reviewers discussed a multi-part proposal to reconfigure parcels at the property previously identified as Aurora and now referred to as Gotham. The filing would create three parcels and includes a request for a 2-88 variance allowing a parcel to be served without direct access to a municipal road.

Why it matters: The reconfiguration raises practical questions about who is responsible to maintain the private access road that would serve the interior parcels. Board members said the town must ensure emergency access, identify maintenance responsibility, and consider deed notes or easements requiring upkeep.

Private-road and emergency-access concerns
The board asked who would be responsible for maintaining the \"blue\" access road shown on maps; staff responded that absent a maintenance easement the responsibility typically rests with the served parcel owner. Members emphasized that if emergency services cannot reach buildings because the private road becomes impassable, the town should have recourse (for example, the right to repair and then lien the property). The board recommended deed-restriction language naming a responsible party and considering the town's right (but not obligation) to enter and restore access if required.

T-Mobile colocation and parcel accuracy
Separately, the board discussed a T-Mobile colocation application for a cell tower on the site. Reviewers said the tower and its fall zone appeared close to the parcel edge and asked the applicant to confirm which parcel the tower occupies; one member said a survey should verify whether the tower sits entirely on the parcel represented in the application.

Other items
The applicant discussed possible future building construction on one of the newly formed parcels but said no building is proposed now. Board members noted a prior landing-strip feature and upland soils, described how the new lot layout would create a front parcel with road frontage and rear parcels on black-dirt soils, and asked that any future building proposals include adequate access and code compliance.

Ending: The board asked the applicant to provide a current survey of property lines, deed-restriction or maintenance-easement language for the private road, and a parcel-specific confirmation for the T-Mobile tower before further approvals.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","Town Board Meeting July 9, 2025.","oneSentenceSummary","An applicant seeks to reconfigure parcels at the Aurora (now referenced as Gotham) property; reviewers discussed a 2-88 variance (allowing build without direct municipal road access), private road maintenance responsibility, and whether a T-Mobile colocation sits on the correct parcel.","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},6510835,"Planning reviewers flag septic sizing and deed restrictions for Strack Road lot in watershed overlay",193,261000,454000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=5348047-0ae70a304a1a2dda88f6c441eefd3dba&start=261&end=454","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5348047-0ae70a304a1a2dda88f6c441eefd3dba/thumbnail_261000.jpg","/articles/6510835/Goshen/Orange-County/New-York/Planning-reviewers-flag-septic-sizing-and-deed-restrictions-for-Strack-Road-lot-in-watershed-overlay","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6510835-7a877f8dae3e1ee0e2461091380500ea/orig.mp4?Expires=1771091539&Signature=Vly4ERrMv9Dv-P1BNs~933nhaN6awCFeXPpSsGqQHSuEcb5E0fZVmvYGCTBpujJP9ibXFFRUUO9wRtORUoQlxHBdgWqYg-HrKdPc4nV9fKK5GXBw4QxXXdCJAiWt52Fh-nDlONW4Rhdz3YYVFLaK6omJqT0-lGWRRYlH40uD7SW83w9M1NxaYEYflP95ZR5KKW5R4~MMi-oAKY0QmlXri-13f22vf6IRGCrg3O99r9WGZ8Qp72JG1jlZdpfPR0FlGvi5xSm0G-BnBb2QkX57ciXALx6AXtm2J0q9KjcPG2smwqPtmomweE4B3giV2NpvXbJMPJ-fZTuBXc1qLw-rRw__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Goshen reviewers discussed a site-plan application for a one-acre single-family house at 10 Strack Road that requires planning-board review because it sits partly in the town's reservoir/watershed overlay.

The board's concerns focused on septic capacity, wetland avoidance and appropriate deed restrictions. Reviewers said the planning board should confirm that the septic system is properly sized, inspected and that construction adheres to watershed-overlay requirements. The board also said a deed restriction limiting automotive repairs and restricting potentially harmful chemical use on the lot would be appropriate given proximity to the reservoir.

Why it matters
The parcel lies in a neighborhood described in the meeting as an older summer-bungalow area. Because runoff from Strack Road and its adjoining lots eventually reaches the village reservoir by way of Arcadia Road, reviewers said controlling septic performance and limiting on-site chemical and maintenance activities are central to protecting downstream water quality.

Details and next steps
Board members noted a diagonal wetland on the property and asked that building plans be engineered to direct runoff to the road front and into existing culverts rather than toward the reservoir. They said the town inspector (Frank) should ensure the septic permit and any required on-site tests are completed prior to final approval. Reviewers also discussed deed restrictions that would prohibit auto repairs and limit fertilizer or de-icing chemical use on the lot; the planning board was expected to consider appropriate deed-note language.

Ending: The ERB recommended that the planning board require evidence of septic capacity and inspection, engineered stormwater/runoff controls to protect the watershed, and deed restrictions limiting certain uses and chemical applications before final site-plan approval.","A proposed single-family home on Strack Road within the reservoir/watershed overlay drew board attention to septic sizing, stream/wetland avoidance and deed restrictions limiting certain uses and chemical applications.",{"_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},6510840,"Planning reviewers warn that 17M Flex Building plan could worsen truck turning hazards without state lane work",508,544000,1052000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=5348047-0ae70a304a1a2dda88f6c441eefd3dba&start=544&end=1052","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5348047-0ae70a304a1a2dda88f6c441eefd3dba/thumbnail_544000.jpg","/articles/6510840/Goshen/Orange-County/New-York/Planning-reviewers-warn-that-17M-Flex-Building-plan-could-worsen-truck-turning-hazards-without-state-lane-work","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6510840-69971e5a6270e87b4532849500488d12/orig.mp4?Expires=1771091539&Signature=ZDlvmio7oZBSX7lgTTY8Cqv1KIct2YPb9WRjUlGWlNEP0L9OgkBjwR4oOGiNKS9YBgWy1HTYzfSoGPlyD04fE-r4ZS27KpeSxy7zD9hA9WHl-eh-9VopjN9zk-dlAH0Nxo8~F7a6JRmmi1~YoYm6JyOFrfG0TeTaN6252wNHiqa3E5zQ7CTE9Bhq1hBbNf977xTYq-muVMzkLnWis6pmFTL~CHFeCZBtoC4qdQVurzg7n6GSljztZVSnzFqOfj3S4ilpTXP9LXFP-NIjx6EUByHLvbjDY2oyrza75~FUsqxJJIpsnOdn3F0Gucu99GqmmezcvYGNWQWVAxZhGXLMJg__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Goshen planning reviewers told the meeting that a revised site plan for a proposed 17M Flex Building raises safety concerns because large trucks would need to swing into opposing traffic on Cannon Hill to make turns without dedicated turning lanes or an adjusted entrance radius.

Why it matters: The proposed building would attract tractor-trailers to a constrained intersection on state Route 17M. Reviewers said that in the absence of state construction of a dedicated westbound turning lane, trucks entering and exiting the site could create queueing and safety risks during peak hours.

Discussion and concerns
Board members said state ownership of Route 17M complicates immediate safety fixes because the state DOT must authorize permanent changes to the roadway. At a prior planning meeting, the state reportedly said the corridor warranted a dedicated westbound turning lane but gave no timetable for construction. Reviewers said that leaving the project to proceed without the lane would shift the safety burden to residents and local roads.

Members discussed mitigation options: having the applicant contribute to the lane as part of a cost-share (citing a nearby RDM contribution example), dedicating land now so future state work could be constructed without later condemnation, or redesigning the site entrance and turning radius so large trucks do not need to encroach into the oncoming lane on Cannon Hill.

Technical points
The reviewers requested a turning-radius analysis that explicitly models tractor-trailer movements from 17M into the site without crossing the opposing lane, and they asked the applicant's traffic consultant to confirm whether the proposed internal turning geometry is adequate for the largest expected trucks. They said the turning-radius study submitted to the board did not show truck maneuvers that occur when vehicles queue on Cannon Hill during peak periods and morning bus runs.

Next steps
Board members said they expect the applicant to provide clearer turning-radius documentation and suggested the town seek confirmation from the DOT about the lane timetable. Some members said they would prefer conditioning plan approval on a contribution or land dedication so the town would not bear full cost if the state delays the lane construction.

Ending: The board did not approve or deny the plan at the meeting; members asked for revised turning-radius analysis, DOT input on timing for the dedicated lane, and potential contribution or property-dedication options before further action.","Reviewers raised safety concerns about truck turning radii for a proposed 17M Flex Building and questioned allowing the project to proceed before state-built turning lanes are in place; board discussed possible developer contributions or property dedication toward improvements.",{"_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},6510844,"Residents, board raise completeness and contamination concerns about IWS DEIS and operations",2203,1993000,4196000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=5348047-0ae70a304a1a2dda88f6c441eefd3dba&start=1993&end=4196","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5348047-0ae70a304a1a2dda88f6c441eefd3dba/thumbnail_1993000.jpg","/articles/6510844/Goshen/Orange-County/New-York/Residents-board-raise-completeness-and-contamination-concerns-about-IWS-DEIS-and-operations","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6510844-ae94c633c4065fa58d4fd82cce78e732/orig.mp4?Expires=1771091539&Signature=RZTqlhWjhT4mfuXhwdpscCLz75xoKdhFmOr8WAN4pKxJ6DcGbfJspiKjuOCEMvP2i3axRaKP7qhBlaiG26gQ2TXqWHNJPIH0hlUgDdHqy31VpIZHW6uO6pbwvVRQj5ym5TsP60tg-yzFC4PIJiTrC~QFUNHipJUawJE3Kzkknj~nG0hcm7e9KipgFx-7DrmZh4MyDrA97PRsiQY-Xw73wCVa6-s9jS-YeBGP-QFGf7TlqNkcr3Z5~xa-4IVHeAVdJY1bvUDaezAc2yfRy7Z15qk9grpOFzKEo8~-0QogUp-Um4JZ0pY8k8mGxI-mAr2dG5tALWJ7L4B3yEG7qJLWDQ__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Goshen Environmental Review Board members and residents told the town board the draft environmental impact statement (DEIS) for IWS does not provide full, usable answers on contamination control, worker and public health protections, and soil disposal plans.

The board and public speakers flagged what they said were gaps in the DEIS and raised several alleged permit and property-boundary issues that, if accurate, could affect whether a past special permit was properly granted. A resident provided recent aerial photos showing uncovered lowboy trailers and other trucks parked outside the area the applicant identified as its property.

Why it matters: IWS is a facility that handles contaminated material and related wastes. Board members said the town board, which is the lead agency for the SEQRA review, should not accept a DEIS that leaves operational and health safeguards vague. Multiple members recommended the town require specific contractors, testing protocols and disposal destinations be named rather than general promises that a vendor \"will be engaged.\" A resident said uncovered trailers and alleged off-property parking raise immediate concerns about run-off and airborne contamination.

Board and public concerns
Board members and commenters said several items in the DEIS were handled in a way that addresses the topic but lacks the technical specificity needed for a conclusive environmental finding. For example, the DEIS lists an estimated 200 tons of excess soil and states that locations for disposal will be identified prior to construction; reviewers told the board that the town should require specific disposal locations, chain-of-custody testing, and transport/disposal contracts or commitments before treating the issue as resolved.

Resident Susan (identified in the meeting) described the picture evidence and told the board that uncovered lowboy trailers were visible in an aerial photo she provided. \"If those trucks are on the property and uncovered, that was part of their previous approval that they could not have uncovered trailers,\" she said at the meeting. Board members asked for a clear survey showing the facility's property lines and how parked equipment aligns with those lines.

Permit and property-boundary questions
The transcript record shows repeated discussion of whether a prior special permit for the facility was properly conditioned and whether the operator has expanded activity onto adjoining land without recorded lease or purchase. Board members said earlier approvals included conditions (for example, covered trailers and a back-fence) that should be checked for current compliance. One reviewer said a soils map included in the DEIS (figure referenced in the filing) appears to show parked equipment outside the applicant's property boundary, which could also place existing buildings within a required setback.

Operations, odors and worker safety
The DEIS presents mitigation measures including increased air exchanges in a proposed building and \"atomized water\" dust/odor suppression systems. Board members said the description lacks information about the specific chemicals proposed, inhalation safety for employees and neighbors, and monitoring or oversight plans. The board noted prior enforcement history mentioned in the transcript, including an EPA test and an earlier consent order related to contaminated discharge onto a neighbor's property. Members asked whether any on-site washing or vehicle decontamination (for example, tire baths) is planned and whether those procedures were described.

Next steps and town-board role
The ERB members said their role is to advise the town board. They recommended the town board, as lead agency, require more detailed technical documentation before making a completeness or adequacy determination: a qualified geotechnical report, specific contractor names and disposal sites, a current boundary survey, and a health/industrial hygiene review to evaluate employee and community exposure. Several members suggested the town hire or request expertise from health or industrial hygiene consultants.

The board discussed scheduling an additional ERB meeting to prepare formal comments before the town board takes final action. Members said they expected the town board to request consultant review as part of its lead agency responsibilities.

Ending: The ERB did not make a final finding on DEIS completeness at the meeting; instead the board recommended the town board seek more detail and technical review. Board members and residents asked for a follow-up meeting and for the town board to require named contractors and disposal destinations, a boundary survey, and clearer contamination-control measures before the project moves forward.","Goshen review board members and residents told the town board the IWS draft environmental impact statement is incomplete on key health, soil disposal and property-boundary questions; residents also presented aerial photos showing uncovered trailers and trucks parked off the facility's recorded property line.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Lot reconfiguration at former Aurora/Gotham site raises private-road maintenance and cell-tower questions

Planning reviewers flag septic sizing and deed restrictions for Strack Road lot in watershed overlay

Planning reviewers warn that 17M Flex Building plan could worsen truck turning hazards without state lane work

Residents, board raise completeness and contamination concerns about IWS DEIS and operations