The Goshen Town Planning Board spent a substantial portion of its meeting reviewing an amended site-plan application for a Tier 2 battery energy storage system proposed for 114 Hartley Road.

Applicant representatives led by civil engineer Rosie Kranz (Craig Manning) and subject-matter consultants briefed the board on several revisions: shifting battery units westward to reduce zoning variances, reducing utility poles planned for the site from 12 to 8, and routing some electrical conduit underground to reduce above-ground poles and wires. The applicant said those changes were prompted by coordination with the utility (Orange and Rockland) and the Zoning Board.

Board members and staff focused on public-safety, environmental and operational questions. Town planning staff and the board asked for additional detail on emergency response and hazard mitigation analysis, including: whether battery failure products (combustion products, electrolyte vapors) could reach surface water or groundwater; whether the facility’s emergency response plan (ERP) provided enough data to allow the board to draw a “hard look” under SEQR on potential irreversible impacts; and whether the proposed fire-response approach (limited direct use of water, reliance on manufacturer testing and a subject-matter expert) was sufficiently documented and operationally available to local fire responders.

Paul Rogers, a consultant with ESRG, explained that modern battery systems undergo destructive testing and that manufacturers listed to new New York State performance standards have validated behaviors designed to limit thermal propagation. Rogers said that, in his experience, incidents that have been studied showed most combustion and potential hazardous releases remained within site perimeters and that monitoring around the perimeter in other incidents found no readings impacting the public. He described fire-suppression strategy as focused on containment and protective defense for surrounding exposures; in some cases firefighters will employ fogging or water to cool exposures under incident-command direction and with subject‑matter expert consultation.

Town staff and board counsel asked for more detail on several specific items before a formal environmental determination or a negative declaration could be prepared: an explicit written justification from the utility for the reduced-pole design; quantitative analysis and documentation on the risk to surface/groundwater (beyond the ERP statement that water would not be used for direct firefighting in most events); photographic documentation, cross-sections or a flagged site visit to confirm the applicant’s assertion that the heritage trail will not have meaningful visibility of the facility; and a clearer noise assessment that explains the applicant’s assumptions (the submitted noise study modeled both a conservative 100% operating fan load and a 40% typical operating load; the board asked for justification of the 40% operating assumption and, if needed, additional mitigation strategies).

Fire department representatives present told the board they had reviewed the ERP and hazard-mitigation analyses in coordination with the applicant and indicated they were satisfied with the plan’s framework provided that subject-matter expert support and training commitments are documented and available before commissioning. The board asked that those written confirmations be submitted for the record and w​ritten into the ERP or as conditions.

Board members also requested clearer plans describing: access and fire-lane demarcation and enforceability (signs and striping), the location and capability of water supplies and relays used for any defensive water application, commissioning and annual review procedures, and protocols for notification, staging and a 100-foot “initial isolation” perimeter (noting that weather and wind may affect incident contours). The board asked the applicant to coordinate directly with all fire chiefs who might respond and to provide documentation of that coordination.

On several procedural points the applicant sought, and staff recommended, that the board receive a written response addressing the town’s review letter items and consider scheduling any coordinated public hearings after those materials are provided. No final vote or determination was taken; the board asked the applicant to return with written clarifications, fire-department signoffs, the utility justification for poles, additional noise documentation and visual materials to support the SEQR review and the board’s forthcoming decision on whether to prepare a negative declaration.