Goshen ZBA unanimously votes to reopen variances for 6 and 8 Gumwood Drive, citing unclear decision language

The Town of Goshen Zoning Board of Appeals voted unanimously to reopen and set public rehearings for variance decisions affecting 6 and 8 Gumwood Drive, saying the written decisions may have granted relief broader than the board intended and could affect the Planning Board's jurisdiction.

Board counsel explained that a prior June decision (recorded as a 3-2 vote) granted variances involving multiple overlay sections of the town code — specifically the floodplain and ponding-area overlay (97-25), buffer/overlay protections (97-26) and aquifer/lot-area rules (97-27) — but the written language lacked specific measurable criteria. Counsel said that omission could be read as a waiver of entire code sections rather than narrowly tailored dimensional relief, with downstream consequences for how similar applications would be handled.

Charlie Biziv, attorney for the applicant, told the board that leaving the decision in place would likely leave the town and applicant in the same practical position because the building department can issue a floodplain development permit with conditions; he also argued the applicant and its consultants had relied on the written decision and incurred several thousand dollars in engineering and escrow costs. "If you do nothing and you let the decision stand as it is right now, I think the town as a whole ends up in the exact same position," Biziv said. He warned that, because the written decision is on the record and the 30-day appeal window has closed, challenges are limited and the applicant has acted in reliance on that decision.

Town counsel and other board members discussed the legal concept of detrimental reliance and whether the board still had authority to rescind or revise its earlier rulings. Counsel said there was no bright-line test and that courts balance facts, but advised the board that revising language to clarify that the variance is tied to specific, measurable dimensional criteria and that Planning Board jurisdiction is preserved would reduce legal risk. Counsel also warned that rescinding the decision entirely would create greater exposure than bringing the decision back for clarification.

Board members said their original intent was to send the project to the Planning Board for site-plan and special-permit review so that the neighbor, drainage, floodplain, and environmental issues would receive fuller scrutiny; they said the written decision did not clearly carry that intention forward. Several members said they wanted to preserve Planning Board review while still allowing the property owner a path to develop the lots consistent with floodplain development rules.

After discussion the ZBA read a drafted motion to "reconsider the decision for the limited purpose of clarifying and, if necessary, modifying the scope of the variance so that it is tied to specific measurable dimensional criteria and expressly preserves Planning Board jurisdiction under sections 97-25 through 97-27 of the town code." A motion to that effect was moved and seconded, and the board voted unanimously to schedule public rehearings and to provide statutory notice. The clerk was directed to publish notice and mail to adjoining property owners, Planning Board members, and the building inspector.

As a result of the vote, the board set public rehearings for Nov. 18, with the possibility of additional sessions depending on complexity. The board and counsel said they would collaborate with applicant counsel to draft language the board could accept at rehearing so the decision, if modified, would be limited to measurable criteria that reflect the board's original intent. Counsel for the applicant reiterated that the applicant has already spent money on engineering and escrow and that some of those actions were taken after relying on the existing written decision.

Board members emphasized they were not seeking to block development outright but to ensure future actions preserve the Planning Board's role and avoid unintended precedent.