Goshen board reviews broad rewrite of Chapter 89 vehicle-and-traffic code

The Goshen Town Board spent a lengthy portion of its Sept. 11 meeting reviewing a proposed rewrite of Chapter 89 of the town code that would add roughly 50 sections aligning town traffic rules with commonly enforced sections of New York State's Vehicle and Traffic Law, town special prosecutor Robert Remeta told the board.

Remeta said the proposal grew from input with local police and his experience prosecuting traffic cases in town court. "Some of the fines were almost, I viewed it almost the cost of doing business," Remeta said, arguing that higher fines and local sections would create a stronger deterrent and let officers cite offenders under town code without state surcharges.

The proposed draft inserts new sections numbered roughly 89-21 through 89-70 and a towing provision at 89-71; it also restates existing local fines in the draft for convenience, Remeta said. He described several areas that require follow-up or clarification: which fine ranges (taken from state law) remain subject to the town justice's discretion; adding a definitions section for "portable electronic devices" (to include GPS and similar devices); and a missing fine amount for a child-restraint violation in the draft.

Board members and attendees pressed for specific clarifications. One board member asked who would decide the exact penalty within a listed range for an expired registration under 60 days; Remeta said the range was "left to the town justice" and that he would monitor state changes. Members flagged a typographical error in the draft and asked Remeta to clean up numbering and titles.

Another area of dispute was language about charges "necessary to effect removal," which the draft caps at $50 and sets a storage-service charge of $15 per day. Several board members said the $50 figure appears inconsistent with typical towing costs and could be read to cap tow charges; Remeta acknowledged the ambiguity and said he would clarify whether the $50 applies only to the highway department's removal fee and whether towing fees are excluded.

The board also discussed enforcement of overweight commercial trucks. Remeta said municipal code cannot replicate New York's complex weight-based formula without access to weighing equipment, so the draft adopts a flat-range approach with stepped increases for repeat offenses. He said that, where appropriate, officers can charge under the state Vehicle and Traffic Law, which carries license points and stiffer penalties for commercial drivers.

On operational details, Remeta and others said officers currently use paper tickets while the town works to produce a fillable PDF and pursue automation; he also noted the draft would let the town adjust local fine levels in the future instead of being permanently bound to a single schedule. Sergeant Edwards (who assisted with drafting) contributed to the policy decisions, Remeta said.

Members asked that the stop-sign and parking-location lists in the code be double-checked against the eCode listings so defendants cannot plausibly claim a sign omission. Remeta said he had relied on police input for stop-sign listings and would confirm the references and amendment dates in the online code.

No formal action was taken. The board asked Remeta to correct typographical issues and ambiguous language and to return with a revised draft; the matter will be discussed again and the board will set a public hearing at a future meeting.

Ending: The board left the draft open for edits and follow-up. Staff and legal counsel will clarify the $50 removal language, missing fine amounts, the portable-device definition, and cross-check stop-sign and road listings before the next public discussion.