[{"_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",6487355,"mediaKeyId","5653816-92883830f770b1ab8af6632eb43378f6","parentId",5653816,"title","Votes at a glance: Goshen planning board approves several extensions, a lot‑line adjustment and other routine items","audioSeconds",5342,"startMs",170000,"endMs",5512000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=5653816-92883830f770b1ab8af6632eb43378f6&start=170&end=5512","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5653816-92883830f770b1ab8af6632eb43378f6/thumbnail_170000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6487355/Goshen/Orange-County/New-York/Votes-at-a-glance-Goshen-planning-board-approves-several-extensions-a-lotline-adjustment-and-other-routine-items","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6487355-810c1e70156d0d41d903ff659acdf8e7/orig.mp4?Expires=1775365182&Signature=RK3PKBf2k5pUiba3XC9hRcf8QTGse3MkGRyCmuBcfgnXpPT4BRJjs-eiv6-bQm3MfAFf6xyd9MsdGieB9fQ-7e2A4HysyZOHfgiHzgvPoEKQxYzMhAnjs1B3XvMq4xEcyWy5HrCldE0h1vuHtS3MvWLgp9ymp2QvK39mOXO2-UIg-40fQrQZxQ-~Q7Ie41tNSJVrqRTPTxKWkgHryPdg73zYEQ9znvwDvC94gnwtbxI-dSq12o6I73buTMebzVEDREvQaPqG9RbbyP9b-57Y0QjCAxDiRg0yHCohqyRN8WbmnvUZ5Ku~bUKcl8iW3jNovMIxDsPx9qVtSbxlZw80ug__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","City of Goshen, NY","date","2025-08-21T23:15:43Z","article","At its August 21 meeting the Town of Goshen Planning Board approved several routine extension requests and a lot-line adjustment. Most approvals were made by motion and voice vote; the transcript records verbal ayes for approvals but not detailed numerical roll-call tallies.

Key outcomes recorded in the meeting transcript:

- Youngs Grove (conditional preliminary major subdivision approval): Applicant requested two 90‑day extensions. The board approved an extension to Feb. 19, 2026, to allow the applicant additional time to complete remaining conditions including water filtration design and DEC responses.

- IWS (Goshen transfer station) site plan and special permit: Applicants requested a six‑month extension. The board approved a six‑month extension to Feb. 28, 2026; minutes note the applicant has been advised this would be the last extension if outstanding items are not complete.

- Girda (minor subdivision): Applicant requested 90 days to finalize deed restrictions and a common driveway maintenance agreement; the board approved the 90‑day extension to Nov. 20, 2025.

- Gotham Properties / Aurora Innovations (lot-line adjustment): The board approved conditional preliminary and final lot-line adjustment approval and revised the plat to show the correct location of an existing cell tower; the board determined a public hearing was not necessary for that lot-line adjustment.

Notes on voting and procedure: in most routine items the transcript captures motions, seconds and a voice \"aye\"; abstentions were recorded in one instance (IWS extension recorded one abstention). Several approvals included conditions the applicant must meet before permits or certificates are issued, and staff will confirm compliance and follow up at subsequent meetings.

Items were largely clerical and procedural; no final major site-plan approvals requiring extended conditions or complex mitigation (beyond those detailed in other articles) were taken at this meeting.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","Planning Board Meeting. August 21, 2025.","oneSentenceSummary","The board granted multiple extension requests for subdivisions and site plans and approved a lot-line adjustment for Gotham Properties; votes were typically voice approvals recorded without detailed roll-call tallies.","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},6487358,"Board delays final action on Gibbs Garden agricultural warehouse; requests more water, occupancy and building-use details",1607,3374000,4981000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=5653816-92883830f770b1ab8af6632eb43378f6&start=3374&end=4981","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5653816-92883830f770b1ab8af6632eb43378f6/thumbnail_3374000.jpg","/articles/6487358/Goshen/Orange-County/New-York/Board-delays-final-action-on-Gibbs-Garden-agricultural-warehouse-requests-more-water-occupancy-and-building-use-details","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6487358-2379eb55fae83a49601ea4fa3d4e11fe/orig.mp4?Expires=1775365182&Signature=BjMImOMmopBkBH56IKIWw5NnRInPAqDUkSiTO3RSU2l0vWn21FJozeizltx7IrRvIx4a3zYv37ZW1dVnruDMVDZCRt-ofzgS2SC-tOXcglZDUhjF~7UWjCAc87p7SniBybX-OZSQIwjgWwdrQIAsDtFVQzB1TbjWxoI97Le0Xaa-6bguibPHDAVcFi~t67Uv9jadRNEX9x-Ga~nKRdXG-KKEVGDrvGywVgf3IRVY0EvZv8XCu0N2ixmuTnqKs0L9r9xUpn7VqsMCjwL2zYC3lSdZu3dtKEhSfjXG0xf8ZzGBsFWd3NBiCgpnCgzpQLDbKlsoPcOk3t1yAahpJ1ygyQ__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Gibbs Garden LLC presented revised plans, a long environmental assessment form, an archaeological study and endangered-species review for a proposed 10.66-acre agricultural warehouse and packing facility on Pulaski Highway.

Town staff told the board they had received archaeological clearance from SHPO and that a hydrogeologist had been engaged to review on-site well capacity. Sean (staff) advised the board that because mailings establishing lead agency for SEQR were performed on July 28, 30 days would not have elapsed until Aug. 27, so the planning board could not yet assume lead-agency status for SEQR determinations.

Board members and staff raised several substantive outstanding issues the applicant must clarify before the board schedules or holds a public hearing:
- Water supply and well testing: staff asked for confirmation whether existing buildings on the property are connected to a common well and whether the proposed new building’s water demand would exceed available yield. The applicant had engaged a hydrogeologist to perform a water test and to confirm required flow; staff noted the applicant reported expected demand figures but that more calculations would help.
- Employee and operational numbers: the application lists 15 employees for the operation, but board members questioned whether that figure accounts for activity across the existing and proposed buildings and whether it aligns with the water demand assumptions.
- Existing structures and future use: multiple buildings on the property were described as vacant or used for storage; board members requested clarity about whether any existing buildings are hooked to water or intended for future use, and cautioned that re‑occupying or rehabilitating buildings could trigger separate review.

The board discussed whether to schedule a public hearing and staff said a hearing could be scheduled at the board’s discretion; multiple members said they preferred to receive the pending technical responses (hydrogeologist well test, confirmation of building use and water connections) before setting a hearing. At one point a board member noted, “the purpose of the public hearing is for the public to be informed, and I feel like there's just too much information... not good answering yet to rush a public hearing.”

No formal approval or vote on the site plan occurred during the meeting; staff indicated the applicant had waived certain time limits to allow the board additional time to review new materials. The board also discussed possible conditions for approval, including requiring the applicant to post stormwater bonds and to execute a developer's agreement if certain off-site improvements are required in the future.

The transcript shows staff and the applicant will continue technical follow-up and that the board will consider a public hearing once hydrogeology and water-supply questions and other plan clarifications are resolved.","Applicants presented a revised site plan and environmental materials for a proposed agricultural warehouse and packing facility, but planning staff and board members said more detail is needed on wells, water demand, current on-site buildings and employee counts before scheduling a public hearing.",{"_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},6487363,"Planning board conditionally approves T‑Mobile wireless site; requires engineer certification before compliance",679,671000,1350000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=5653816-92883830f770b1ab8af6632eb43378f6&start=671&end=1350","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5653816-92883830f770b1ab8af6632eb43378f6/thumbnail_671000.jpg","/articles/6487363/Goshen/Orange-County/New-York/Planning-board-conditionally-approves-TMobile-wireless-site-requires-engineer-certification-before-compliance","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6487363-ad09fe95390ec19f66703fe5d9c7e208/orig.mp4?Expires=1775365182&Signature=RamO5hHKdte1aTyOhf02pL2B07PGBNpphgXmU2eULU26NSbhR43cy-81tuD6qE~J33BDunePf3ivgaVlYeAFc2WCHyJi77cILxigG6UHIDtBqmcW8X64oq3QcFJmapHRcBO7ZyvloC4nrTy8WlaXby2wljR7ad09nbCC8cM5G-GdQnskvkXLTdUNtLfSa0EGGpPqhYBgM8WH2~jQTaYMc~2nI3iWaSZeEJWn2iOdzi89S2pJwpKemztqCgGIwAwsJX-PaHcvr1MGC8laVrMlNKPsMAZAwtKC~Bn33i15GndGf9eSJQA4Gh4Ch1qDd5PlN-XShVTIgg5z3BQGPqevmA__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The Town of Goshen Planning Board approved a resolution of conditional approval for a T‑Mobile Northeast LLC minor wireless communications facility, adopting a negative environmental determination and attaching site-specific conditions intended to preserve local control over aesthetics and safety.

The board reviewed a short environmental assessment form and agreed the project warranted a negative declaration based on the application materials. The applicant reduced antenna elements to meet the town’s minor wireless-facility standard and agreed to follow the town’s ordinance rather than relying on FCC allowances for larger installations.

Applicant attorney Frank Ferraro described equipment colors and constraints: “the cabinets come in... a light gray. The generator is, like, an off white,” he said, noting that equipment and fire-rated enclosures leave limited color flexibility. The board added a new condition that must be met before issuance of a certificate of compliance: the applicant must submit written certification from a professional engineer that the facility operates in compliance with the application and town code.

Why it matters: wireless facilities intersect federal rules and local zoning; the planning board emphasized it was processing the application under local ordinance standards for a minor facility and that aesthetic and safety conditions are within local authority. The board discussed the FCC report and order but concluded the town’s ordinance controls how the application is being processed.

The transcript shows the motion to approve the conditional minor site plan as modified was made and seconded; the board recorded approval. The resolution contains conditions including equipment/color expectations, setback references updated to reflect a previously overlooked zoning board decision, and the engineer-certification requirement prior to certificate of compliance.

No detailed roll-call tally is recorded in the transcript; the board’s verbal aye was recorded but the transcript does not list individual votes or a numerical tally.","The board approved a conditional minor wireless facility for T‑Mobile with aesthetic and safety conditions, a reduction in antenna height to meet local minor-facility rules, and a pre-occupancy engineer certification requirement.",{"_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},6487368,"Goshen planning board presses developer on Route 17M traffic fixes, agrees to short SEQR extension",2557,1385000,3942000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=5653816-92883830f770b1ab8af6632eb43378f6&start=1385&end=3942","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5653816-92883830f770b1ab8af6632eb43378f6/thumbnail_1385000.jpg","/articles/6487368/Goshen/Orange-County/New-York/Goshen-planning-board-presses-developer-on-Route-17M-traffic-fixes-agrees-to-short-SEQR-extension","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6487368-5fbe35e804c7632fe2a344a9fdb7dd80/orig.mp4?Expires=1775365182&Signature=oxzAf-Idv73V1INy8ZC6EVT2nOyQKBQ~6O6RDwSfILOAp65TGOXHVJhTQOS3fyMFxdc21IGA4dDgvpECDAJygYHvJkRSbBVfx-XHggK7DoRoz2RuxmGElNCg-Qj2sfg29qjgUYmFrAtUHunjYQQiC~8BoU3I~-BKRd4Nck4um7bIfsQzY3hqSIcakF-lzmf9deNV3UVntO~dUf3h~W3dKWc6JBnvPROyTYOFY9rL3L-PrDKoQ9BlUVK2X4PxqQbzJMgkglz7ZSiK7OFYx5ZQ33iE4GRIgeLcesf5DNgT-aYheY9DK8d7SUExuAQBpo5uhUmY1juzKyQuSwbb9puq4A__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The Town of Goshen Planning Board spent its longest discussion of the evening on a proposed 17M Flex Building site plan, focusing on traffic impacts at the intersection of New York State Route 17M and Cannon Hill Drive and on how any required road improvements would be funded.

The board’s traffic consultant, John Canning, told members that a left-turn lane on Route 17M is warranted and described how a two-stage left-turn lane would operate. “When you provide a left turn lane, you can just do a simple left turn lane, but the issue with Cannon Hill Drive, in addition to the left turn, is getting out of there in the evening,” Canning said, explaining that a driver can turn into the left-turn lane and then merge into westbound traffic in two stages.

The consultant recommended the applicant pursue the DOT review and noted that the New York State Department of Transportation would set final design and permitting requirements. “Typically, the applicant does,” Canning said when asked who pays for DOT-required improvements, but he added that fair-share contributions and other funding arrangements are sometimes used when multiple future projects may share the cost.

Why it matters: the intersection already shows higher-than-average accident rates, and the board’s traffic model showed the project could materially increase delay at the intersection if a higher-intensity use takes occupancy. The board grappled with how to limit future traffic intensity and how to ensure any required DOT work is built and paid for if the state does not take immediate action.

Applicant representatives told the board the building is intended to be similar in operation to an existing nearby flex building and that they would consider a fair-share contribution or other developer agreement. The applicant’s counsel and the applicant indicated a willingness to negotiate contributions tied to a DOT concept plan and to limit the building’s design so it would be less likely to trigger higher-intensity industrial uses that generate many more trips.

Board members and consultants discussed enforcement mechanisms to keep future uses aligned with the traffic assumptions. The board talked about conditions that would require a return for review if the building were later modified (for example, removal of a firewall or installation of sprinklers that could enable a different, more intensive use).

The board also agreed to a schedule change for SEQR/decision timing. The board agreed to extend the review window 60 days to allow follow-up analysis and negotiation; the transcript records the board saying, \"We'll extend it 60 days and then revisit it at that point.\" The board directed staff and the applicant to use the DOT concept plan as the basis for estimating a fair-share contribution and to prepare language for a developer's agreement that could be included in a resolution.

Discussion points recorded by the board included:
- Traffic study modeled a conservative scenario (roughly 38 trips peak modeled for a general light industrial use) versus the applicant’s representation of about seven trips based on the existing, similar building.
- The board discussed whether to require the applicant to apply to NYSDOT for a permit to build a left-turn lane or instead to require a developer's agreement and fair-share contribution toward the improvement.
- Possible conditions tying future changes in building configuration or uses (for example, removal of firewalls or addition of sprinklers) to a return to the planning board for re-review.

No final permit was issued that night. The record shows the board moved to extend its decision timeline to October 16, 2025, to allow the applicant and town consultants to refine traffic figures and draft fair-share/developer agreement language. The board also agreed to allow technical staff and consultants to communicate directly with the applicant’s traffic consultant to speed technical review.","The board discussed traffic impacts from a proposed 17M Flex Building, debated a left-turn lane on Route 17M, and moved toward a developer-funded \"fair share\" arrangement while extending SEQR review by 60 days.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Votes at a glance: Goshen planning board approves several extensions, a lot‑line adjustment and other routine items

Board delays final action on Gibbs Garden agricultural warehouse; requests more water, occupancy and building-use details

Planning board conditionally approves T‑Mobile wireless site; requires engineer certification before compliance

Goshen planning board presses developer on Route 17M traffic fixes, agrees to short SEQR extension