Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Large Scale Development topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Developer revises Goshen Hospitality resort plans; board advises master site‑plan approach
Summary
Applicants for the Goshen Hospitality LLC resort presented revised plans shifting an on‑site wastewater treatment plant uphill, reducing hotel heights from four to three stories and trimming a restaurant; the board asked for comparison charts, confirmation of previous ZBA determinations and a master site‑plan approval approach.
Goshen Hospitality LLC presented revised site plans for a proposed hotel and restaurant complex on Sept. 3, showing three principal changes from the 2024 final environmental impact statement: the wastewater treatment plant was moved up the hill behind Hotel 1 to avoid wetland buffer impacts, hotels were redesigned as three stories (rather than a mix of three and four) and one rear restaurant was reduced in size.
The applicant told the board the development team had attempted to secure sewer service from the Village of Goshen but concluded the village was not moving quickly enough; the project therefore proposes an on‑site wastewater treatment plant. The applicant said the revised hotel stack reduced the number of amenity spaces (no pools, spas or meeting rooms in the revised hotels) and added modest building footprint area — the total hotel footprints increased from just over 49,000 square feet to about 55,000 square feet for the three hotels combined.
Board members and staff raised a series of technical and regulatory follow‑ups: confirm building‑height and roof‑profile compliance with design standards, verify whether Zoning Board of Appeals (ZBA) determinations tied to parking landscaping and front‑of‑building parking remain applicable to the revised site plan, provide a narrative and chart comparing the 2024 findings and approvals to the revised layout, and demonstrate that stormwater and recent state stormwater/wetland regulatory changes are addressed. Staff asked the applicant to confirm that renderings, building lines and elevations are consistent with prior approvals; the applicant agreed to return with a superimposed comparison and a narrative listing the changes.
Several board members favored approving a master site plan for the overall development footprint and utilities and then requiring individual building site‑plan submissions only if a future developer proposed design changes from what is approved. The board did not vote on a final site plan at this meeting; it asked the applicant to return with the requested narrative, superimposed plans, stormwater information and confirmation of ZBA-related findings for the next appearance.
Why it matters: the project is large (planned hotel rooms previously estimated at hundreds of units) and touches wetlands, stormwater, scenic and reservoir overlays; the shift to on‑site wastewater and reduced hotel heights have implications for infrastructure design, water storage and pump sizing.
